What the Pentagon Report Missed

[Mad Mike]

If you think I'm the only person who thinks the pentagon report was misrepresented you would be wrong. It's a long read with a lot of info. I'm not sure what to make of pajamasmedia.com but their evidence seems pretty well sourced.

What the Pentagon Report Missed
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what_the_pentagon_report_misse/


When an Institute for Defense Analysis study seemed to announce that there was “no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda,” the media was quick to parrot the line of Warren P. Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers. Relying on a leaked executive summary of the report, Strobel wrote that “an exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents” found “no evidence” linking Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda.

Led by the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, the right side of the blogosphere was quick to point out that the report did contain evidence of such connections, focusing mainly on Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which merged with Al-Qaeda in 1997, and the Army of Mohammed, a Kuwaiti affiliate of Al-Qaeda. The New York Sun’s Eli Lake and the Weekly Standard’s Thomas Joscelyn found in the report evidence that at least five Al-Qaeda affiliates were funded by Iraq.

Still, both the MSM and blogosphere have missed some key points:



The report definitely missed documents that established the Iraq-Al-Qaeda connection. On Friday, I spoke with a former government official whose position required him to review captured Iraqi documents in the Harmony database. (He insisted on anonymity because his work was classified and he continues to consult on intelligence matters.) “I have been in that database and I saw an instruction from the [Iraqi] foreign ministry to its embassy in Havana, instructing them to cooperate with members of Al-Qaeda. The document named specific individuals we know are connected to Al-Qaeda.” Yet, that document does not appear in this report. Why? Most likely, my source says, because it is still being used by the State department or the CIA.

[Mad Mike]

Pentagon Report Documents Iraq - al Qaeda Connections...and the corrupt and/or incompetent DeMSM grossly misrepresent its findings -

http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?p=3002

http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?p=3002

The headline from ABC News: "Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda"

From the NY Times: "Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link"

From CNN: "The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon."


The report:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

As a refresher, these are the things that I found that were not reported in the main stream media...


Quote:
Renewal and Jihad Organization
Secret Islamic Palestinian Organization established after the war. It believes in armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests. They also believe our leader [Saddam Hussein], may God protect him, is the true leader in the war against the infidels. The organization's leaders live in Jordan... when they visited Iraq two months ago they demonstrated a willingness to carry out operations against American interests at any time.


Training foreign terrorists

Quote:
Captured Iraqi archives reveal that Saddam was training Arab fighters (non-Iraqi) in Iraqi training camps more than a decade prior to OPERATION DESERT STORM (1991). A Saddam memorandum directed the IIS to submit a list of foreign nationals who were trained in Iraq and carried out operations during the 1991 war against the United States. 33 In response, the IIS sent a list of one-hundred names of foreign national fighters, categorized by country


Terrorism against american interests

Quote:
In the first, from January 1993, and coinciding with the start of the US humanitarian intervention in Somalia, the Presidential Secretary informed the council member of Saddam's decision to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia."

? In the second memorandum, Saddam orders the IIS Director to revise a
plan the IIS director had previously forwarded to include setting up
operations inside Somalia.44 The overlap between bin Laden's and
Saddam's interests in Somalia provides a tactical example of the parallel
between Iraq and radical Islam: at the same time Saddam was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing.

Other documents show Saddam's terror organizations could be
deadly. They were willing to target not only Western interests but also to directly attack Americans. Uday Hussein reports to his father the results of one such terrorist strike that specifically targeted American aid workers with the UN

1. What was the target?
Attacking the new Land Cruiser vehicle with the UN symbol, the vehicle
originally owned by the [unclear] organization,
There were four American citizens including
one female in the vehicle.
2. Execution
On 19th of February at 1915 hours, using an explosive charge.
3. Participants in the execution of the operation
An advisor and three other citizens. The results of the mission were the
destruction of the above mentioned vehicle, the death of the head of the
organization and the serious injury of the other three, including the
woman. The operation was supported by the command of the At Ta'mim
78 branch of the Party ...

This and other attacks were not isolated incidents but part of a state-directed program of significant scale.


al Qaeda

Quote:
When attacking Western interests, the competitive terror cartel came into play, particularly in the late 1990s. Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda-as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long term vision.

We have learned of a group calling themselves The Army ofMuhammad... has threatened Kuwaiti authorities and plans to attack American and Western interests ...We need detailed information about this group, their activities, their objectives, and their most distinguished leaders. We need to know [to] whom they belong to and with whom they are connected. Give this subject your utmost attention.

Information available to us is that the group is under the wings of bin Laden. They receive their directions from Yemen. Their objectives are the same as bIll Laden...

More to chew on....

Quote:
Ten more pages in this document folder give further details on operatives sent into the countries around Iraq to attack American installations, the ruling families in the Middle East, and oil installations. Most of this material details the cover identities they would use while traveling and how Unit 999 could guarantee their future loyalty once they were out of the unit's direct control.


Some aspects of the indirect cooperation between Saddam's regional terror enterprise and al Qaeda's more global one are somewhat analogous to the Cali and Medellin drug cartels. Both drug cartels (actually loose collections of families and criminal gangs) were serious national security concerns to the United States. Both cartels competed for a share of the illegal drug market. However, neither cartel was reluctant to cooperate with the other when it came to the pursuit of a common objective-expanding and facilitating their illicit trade.

Saddam Hussein was demonstrably willing to use terrorism to achieve his goals. Using this tactical method was a strategic choice of Saddam's, often requiring direct and indirect cooperation with movements, organizations, and individuals possessing, in some cases, diametrically opposed long-term goals. An example of indirect cooperation is the movement led by Osama bin Laden. During the 1990s, both Saddam and bin Laden wanted the West, particularly the United States, out of Muslim lands (or in the view of Saddam, the "Arab nation"). Both wanted to create a single powerful state that would take its place as a global superpower. But the similarities ended there: bin Laden wanted-and still wantsto restore the Islamic caliphate while Saddam, despite his later Islamic rhetoric, dreamed more narrowly of being the secular ruler of a united Arab nation. These competing visions made any significant long-tenn compromise between them highly unlikely. After all, to the fundamentalist leadership of al Qaeda, Saddam represented the worst kind of "apostate" regime-a secular police state well practiced in suppressing internal challenges. In pursuit of their own separate but surprisingly "parallel" visions, Saddam and bin Laden often found a common enemy in the United States.

The Saddam regime was very concerned about the internal threat
posed by various Islamist movements. Crackdowns, arrests, and monitoring of Islamic radical movements were common in Iraq. However, Saddam's security organizations and bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims, at least for the short tenn. Considerable operational overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the regional groups involved in terrorism. Saddam provided training and motivation to revolutionary pan-Arab nationalists in the region. Osama bin Laden provided training and motivation for violent revolutionary Islamists in the region.

Nevertheless, these similarities created more than just the appearance of cooperation. Common interests, even without common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat.


Conclusion

One question remains regarding Iraq's terrorism capability: Is there
anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam's statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes.

[Mad Mike]

Perhaps most damning of the media and their coverage of the report is the abstract of the report itself, found on page 93:


Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

[Mad Mike]

And my post from 2004: :D

3rd-infantry-saddam-911c2.jpg

A fact based argument for the war in Iraq.

John Kerry claimed in the presidential debate that the president made "a colossal error of judgment" and "Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan" but there were no more terrorist training camps remaining in Afghanistan when we invaded Iraq. There were however MANY terrorist training camps operating within Iraq. Kerry said "The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, "Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor." That's what we have here."

Oh Really? Did Mexico attempt the assasination of a former American President? Did it harbor an Al Qaeda leader who ordered the assassination of a US diplomat and opened a training camp in northern Iraq which specialized in making chemical weapons? Did it harbor the man who mixed the chemicals for the bomb used in the first WTC bombing and pay his expenses? Did Mexico host a terrorist training camp complete with an aircraft fuselage to train hijackers? Iraq did all of these things and more.

* Ramzi Yousef (1), architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, arrived in America on an Iraqi passport before fleeing after the attack on Pakistani papers. Abdul Rahman Yasin, indicted for mixing the chemicals for the bomb, fled to Baghdad after the attack and lived there for years afterward. New evidence shows that Saddam's regime provided money and housing to Yasin. (2)

* Abu Abbas masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the ocean liner Achille Lauro during which American retiree Leon Klinghoffer was murdered. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad April 2003. (3)

* Abu Nidal whose real name was Sabri al-Banna broke with the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1974, saying the organization and Yasser Arafat were too moderate. His terrorist gang killed 407 people, including 10 Americans, and wounded 788 more. They received considerable support, including safe haven, training, logistic assistance, and financial aid from Iraq, Libya, and Syria. He lived in Baghdad between 1999 and his mysterious shooting death in August 2002. (4)

* After running an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Abu Musab al Zarqawi received medical care in Baghdad once the Taliban fell. He opened an Ansar al-Islam camp in northern Iraq and reportedly arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan. Zarqawi is at large. It is also worth noting that the 9/11 commission concluded Ansar al-Islam was formed with help from bin Laden. The commission concluded on page 60 of its bipartisan report “There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.” (5) Others have concluded that Zarqawi may have been in competition with bin Laden. (6) Israeli intelligence no longer uses the term Al-Qaeda referring instead to what they call World Jihad, according to a senior Israeli intelligence source “Al-Zarqawi embodies the complexity of this matrix,” (7)

* Saddam Hussein proudly paid money to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers and in 2002 raised the amount paid from $10,000 to $25,000. Within one month 12 suicide bombers successfully struck inside Israel. (8) By funding and encouraging the suicide bombers Saddam acted as a roadblock to peace between Palestine and Israel contributed to the overall instability of the Middle East. This went on while sanctions were in place and was funded in part by the failed U.N. Oil for Food Program.

* In April 1993 Iraq plotted to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush. Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. Some of the suspects reportedly confessed that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS ) was behind the assassination attempt. (9)

Many people have claimed that the 9/11 report concluded there were no links between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Nothing could be further from the truth. The report lists a number of contacts between the representatives of Saddam and bin Laden.

* “With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.” (Pg 61)

Note that the report does not say that Iraq did not respond, only that we do not know if they responded. It is also worth noting that the 9/11 commission concluded the Ansar al-Islam camp in Iraq was established with al-Qaeda help. As we all know, actions speak louder than words.

* The report continues: “In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75” .....“Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.” (Pg 66)

Now I suppose we could assume that Saddam and bin Laden were discussing the upcoming soccer season but when a man like Saddam makes contact with an organization who's only export is terror and who's main target is the United States, I believe alarm bells should be ringing in the mind of any rational person.

On September 11th, nineteen hijackers boarded four aircraft and with military precision took control of those aircraft within minutes after takeoff. We know how the four pilots trained to fly the aircraft into their targets but how did the "muscle" train to take control of the aircraft in the first place? Perhaps the most disturbing piece of evidence and oddly one of the least reported is the Terrorist training camp at Salman Pak. (10)
* At this camp, located just 20 miles south of Baghdad Iraqi nationals and “foreign fighters” were trained in techniques to hijack passenger aircraft using the fuselage of on old soviet airliner, most likely a TU-145. (Most news stories incorrectly identified the aircraft as a Boing 707) James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency said “there are at least five individual witnesses -- two American inspectors and three Iraqi defectors -- who tell us about Iraqi government training of non-Iraqi Arabs at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, on an old Boeing 707 [aircraft], in hijacking techniques, including hijacking with knives. Now is that direct evidence? It strikes me that it’s pretty darn suggestive evidence. Would it alone convict Saddam in a court before a jury beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not. But there’s more.” (11) One of the witnesses, Sabah Khodada was a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. According to Khodada “Nobody came and told us, “This is Al Qaeda people,” but I know there were some Saudis”. (12) Charles Duelfer, author of the recently released WMD report saw the aircraft in 1995. "We were told it was for counterterrorist training," he said "We automatically knocked off the word 'counter.'"
The 9/11 commission sited a Defense Department paper for the Camp David briefing book on the strategic concept for the war on terrorism, it specified "three priority targets for initial action: al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq. It argued that of the three, al Qaeda and Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States. Iraq’s long-standing involvement in terrorism was cited, along with its interest in weapons of mass destruction.65" (Pg 335)

One conclusion the 9/11 commission made was this: "Insight for the future is thus not easy to apply in practice. It is hardest to mount a major effort while a problem still seems minor. Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier—but it then may be too late." (Pg 350)

Iraq was a known state sponsor of terrorism and sworn enemy of the united states. To assume that Iraq's known contacts with al Qaeda as documented in the 9/11 report were not a threat to the security of America would be to repeat the failed policies of the past. President Bush took the only reasonable opportunity available to deal with Iraq before sanctions could be lifted and before he could rebuild his WMD capacity. Had he not done so, we would be still facing the very real threat that Iraq posed as an avowed enemy of the United States.

In the chapter titled "What to do? A Global Strategy" the commission recommended "Just as we did in the Cold War, we need to defend our ideals abroad vigorously. America does stand up for its values. The United States defended, and still defends, Muslims against tyrants and criminals in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. If the United States does not act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic world, the extremists will gladly do the job for us." (Pg 337) Can there be any better way to do this than to remove a ruthless dictator and state sponsor of terrorism who preached hatred for America in the heart of the islamic world and replace his government with a democracy that will benefit it's people share our values?

In waging war against extremist Islamic terrorists and the nations that support them we must teach a lesson. The lesson is not “we will destroy you” it is “by resorting to terrorism, you will destroy yourselves”. Libya got the message. Previous administrations have tried for years to get them to abandon their WMD programs. Five days after Saddam was pulled from his spider hole Muammar Gadhafi complied. His son said at the time "it will pave the way for the normalisation of political relations with the States and also with the West in general and also will lead to eliminate any threat against Libya from the West and from the States in particular." This is a lesson that bin Laden and those who would follow in his footsteps have yet to learn. In fact bin Laden was taught exactly the opposite lesson in the years leading up to the events of 9/11. Any concession we make, no mater how well intended, will be seen as a reward for terrorism. Any withdrawal will be seen as weakness. This is a lesson we dare not teach. We don't have to guess what bin Laden would think if we were to abandon our efforts in Iraq, he has told us.

“Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defense Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that “the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists”.”

“We say to the Defense Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all..... “But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia..... when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you..... You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the “heart” of every Muslim and a remedy to the “chests” of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, Aden and Mogadishu.”

John Kerry has said that George Bush has failed to build alliances, he said that this was "the wrong war at the wrong time" and he has called the allies we have a "coalition of the coerced and bribed". Kerry's sister, Diana is leading a campaign called Americans Overseas in his name. In a recent interview with an Australian newspaper titled "US 'endangers Australians'" she said "Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians". Kerry is not building alliances he is tearing them down. For the sake of his own political ambitions he ignores the progress we have made in Iraq and the war on terror, and focuses instead in our difficulties. In the debate he said "Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq in order to go out to people and say that America has declared war on Islam." John Kerry should read bin Laden's fatwa. In it, bin Laden encouraged his supporters to "spread rumours, fear and discouragement among the members of the enemy forces". Sound familiar?


(1) Who is Ramzi Yousef?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef

(2) U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm

(3) U.S. captures mastermind of Achille Lauro hijacking:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.abbas.arrested/

(4) Abu Nidal Organization:
http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/abunidal.html

(5) The 9-11 Commission Report can be downloaded at:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

(6) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the mysterious man behind the beheadings:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2103109/

(7) Jordanian indictment reveals operations of Jund al-Shams terror
network:
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jtic/
jtic030616_1_n.shtml

(8) Salaries For Suicide Bombers:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml

(9) How do we know that Iraq tried to assassinate President George H.W.
Bush:
http://www.hnn.us/articles/1000.html

(10) Salman Pak - Iraq‘s own terrorist training camp:
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/
messages/826.html

(11) Terrorism – the Iraqi connection:
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/
messages/834.html

(12) PBS Frontline Interview with Sabah Khodada:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/
khodada.html


A little more info on Salman Pak.

It has been a subject of special interest to me and information is hard to come by. As best I can tell, the aircraft was destroyed or disassembled and removed before the start of the war. That may be an indication of guilt by an attempt to hide evidence, or it may mean they simply got rid of it as part of their attempt to get the sanctions lifted. (See the Duelfer report - http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/) Here's what I know...


Iraqi terrorist training camps found in Iraqi Freedom

http://www.gulfinvestigations.net/source76.html?PHPSESSID=53ee155b4ef4615611767ddd8b 90a56d


CENTCOM Operation Iraqi Freedom Briefing - 06 April 2003

http://www.gulfinvestigations.net/document390.html

Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, CENTCOM Deputy Director of Operations: "There was a raid last night by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. What they raided was a training camp near Samanpak (sp). And you can see the explosion along on the map near Samanpak (sp). This raid occurred in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters we encountered from other countries, not Iraq. And we believe that this camp had been used to train these foreign fighters in terror tactics. It is now destroyed."

Q. Will Adams, ABC... "you mentioned the training camp near Samanpac (sp) and you said information from foreign fighters had helped you to identify that. Are you saying that there are foreign terrorist training camps in Iraq ? "

A. "Now, with regard to Samanpak (sp), that's just one of a number of examples we've found where there is training activity happening inside of Iraq. It reinforces the likelihood of links between his regime and external terrorist organizations, clear links with common interests. Some of these fighters came from Sudan, some from Egypt, and some from other places, and we've killed a number of them and we've captured a number of them, and that's where some of this information came from."

Q (Off mike) --- Australia. Can you just give us some more information about this attack in Salman Pak ? You mentioned there were several other foreign fighters. Can you give us some more details about those nationalities, and what was in the camp to characterize it as a terrorist training facility ?

A. The -- there are a number of nations that were involved. I don't know all of them. I know that we had some from Egypt, some from Sudan, in people that we captured. And that was before the raid -- that gave us information about the raid. The nature of the work being done by some of those people that we captured, their inferences to the type of training they received -- all these things give us the impression that there is terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak. We also found some other things there. We found some tanks -- and destroyed them. We found some armored personnel carriers, and destroyed them in small numbers. We destroyed some buildings that were used for command and control, and some other buildings that were used for morale and welfare. We destroyed the complex. All of that, when you roll it together, their reports where they're from, why they might be here, tell us that there is still a linkage clearly between this regime and terrorism, and it's something we want to make sure we break.

Q (Off mike) ?

A. There's no indications of specific organizations that I am aware of inside of that. We may still find it. As with all operations we conduct into a place, we look for more information after the operation is complete. We'll pull documents out of it, and see what those documents say, if there's any links or indications. We'll look and see if there are any persons that are recovered that may not be Iraqi. All that is detailed and deliberate work that happens after the fact.

CENTCOM Operation Iraqi Freedom Briefing - 23 March 2003

http://www.gulfinvestigations.net/document350.html?PHPSESSID=77570aa3f8181d907a8f557 5ca94b745

Q Do you -- Matko Berzat (ph), Italian News Agency Anzer. Did you strike other terrorist targets like the camp of last Friday ? And did you find any link -- any evidence of link between the Iraqi regime and terrorist organizations ?

GEN. ABIZAID : Well, again, the discussion about links between the Iraqi and terrorist organizations are very clear cut , and we know that they exist, and I don't know that that's really something appropriate for me to comment on.


More links about Salman Pak:

Salman Pak - Iraq‘s own terrorist training camp:
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/826.html

Terrorism – the Iraqi connection:
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/834.html

PBS Frontline Interview with Sabah Khodada:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

Salman Pak: Iraq's Smoking Gun Link to 9/11?
http://cshink.com/salman_pak.htm.



On the "muscle", from the 9/11 report....

Bin Ladin, assisted by Atef, personally chose all the future muscle hijackers for the planes operation, primarily between the summer of 2000 and April 2001. Upon choosing a trainee, Bin Ladin would ask him to swear loyalty for a suicide operation. After the selection and oath-swearing, the operative would be sent to KSM for training and the filming of a martyrdom video, a function KSM supervised as head of al Qaeda’s media committee.104 KSM sent the muscle hijacker recruits on to Saudi Arabia to obtain U.S. visas. He gave them money (about $2,000 each) and instructed them to return to Afghanistan for more training after obtaining the visas. At this early stage, the operatives were not told details about the operation.The majority of the Saudi muscle hijackers obtained U.S. visas in Jeddah or Riyadh between September and November of 2000.105

Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran, on their way to and from Afghanistan. For example, Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda.120

(Note: They were traveling through Iran from Afghanistan. Where were they going? One look at a map of the region raises some interesting questions.)

Final Training and Deployment to the United States Having acquired U.S. visas in Saudi Arabia, the muscle hijackers returned to Afghanistan for special training in late 2000 to early 2001. The training reportedly was conducted at the al Matar complex by Abu Turab al Jordani, one of only a handful of al Qaeda operatives who, according to KSM, was aware of the full details of the planned planes operation. Abu Turab taught the operatives how to conduct hijackings,disarm air marshals, and handle explosives. He also trained them in bodybuilding and provided them with a few basic English words and phrases.108 According to KSM, Abu Turab even had the trainees butcher a sheep and a camel with a knife to prepare to use knives during the hijackings. The recruits learned to focus on storming the cockpit at the earliest opportunity when the doors first opened, and to worry about seizing control over the rest of the plane later. The operatives were taught about other kinds of attack as well, such as truck bombing, so that they would not be able to disclose the exact nature of their operation if they were caught. According to KSM, the muscle did not learn the full details including the plan to hijack planes and fly them into buildings—before reaching the United States.109

Note that the report says the training was "reportedly was conducted at the al Matar complex" an indication that we do not know for sure. I believe it is possible that they gathered there for travel to Salman Pak through Iran. Another possible theory is that Abu Turab al Jordani was trained at the Salman Pak complex and passed on that he learned to the hijackers. One thing for certain, all of these terrorist organizations share manpower and training. Support for one organization is support for the whole. My conclusion is that it is likely that the training conducted at Salman Pak contributed to the preparation for 9/11 in some way.

http://home.earthlink.net/~michaelsart/salman_pak.jpg

[MurrayH81]

MM, thanks for posting some additional, and some historical information.


I still believe that Bush did not know this stuff before going to war, and would not have cared a fig if he did. He simply wanted to kick Saddam's ass permanently, as unfinished family business.

I don't know anyone who thinks that Iraq isn't better off without him out of the way.

The problem was with the sales pitch, which included so much hyped bull**** and misinformation to sway the public opinion that it destroyed the trust of many ordinary Americans.

The other problem is the ongoing bungling of planning of the aftermath of the war, which was grossly and negligently handled to the extreme.

And of course, the final issue is the cost in terms of lives and the economic impacts.

Frankly, even a broken analog clock is correct twice a day, and I expect and demand a lot more from a POTUS/CIC, and we certainly haven't had a competent man in the office for some time.

[chomerics]

OMG!!! You are still pimping your information like it was real???? Even when every single government agency tells you that it was not there???? Normally, I tend to distrust government, but when they say something that hurts their credibility, I kind of believe them. You were taken to school when you posted your ludicrous assertions 4 years ago, i'm surprised you still believe that crap.


And your post is even more of a joke now, 4 years later. You, my friend, have placed yourself in the same lot as the loonies who think 9-11 was an inside job. I guess America is full of crazy people who will believe anything rather then admit they were wrong, thanks for showing us people like yourself are not a figment of the liberal mind, but you actually do exist. :thumbsup:

[chomerics]

I don't know anyone who thinks that Iraq isn't better off without him out of the way.

Ask an average citizen living in Baghdad, and have them tell you what they want. I take it you never saw the HBO special Baghdad ER, where countless Iraqis said, on camera and to the American people, they want Saddam back because it was not like this under him.

you can watch it here. . .
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-348783717621633926

[BigMike619]

Ask an average citizen living in Baghdad, and have them tell you what they want. I take it you never saw the HBO special Baghdad ER, where countless Iraqis said, on camera and to the American people, they want Saddam back because it was not like this under him.

you can watch it here. . .
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-348783717621633926

HBO
Baghdad ER

Was it made by Michael Moore too?

:laugh:

[Burgold]

Ask an average citizen living in Baghdad, and have them tell you what they want. I take it you never saw the HBO special Baghdad ER, where countless Iraqis said, on camera and to the American people, they want Saddam back because it was not like this under him.

you can watch it here. . .
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-348783717621633926

This really depends on which faction you speak with. There are some groups that hated Sadam and were so victimized by him that I don't think they could ever wish him back. There are others who had it very good, and still others who didn't like him, but living with war and the constant threat of violence for six years look back on tyranny as the good ole days.

What a mess.

[Mad Mike]

OMG!!! You are still pimping your information like it was real???? Even when every single government agency tells you that it was not there???? Normally, I tend to distrust government, but when they say something that hurts their credibility, I kind of believe them. You were taken to school when you posted your ludicrous assertions 4 years ago, i'm surprised you still believe that crap.

From the latest GOVERNMENT report:


Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

Learn to read or STFU. Because you really are making yourself look worse with every post. :rolleyes:

[Larry]

Learn to read or STFU. Because you really are making yourself look worse with every post. :rolleyes:

And yet, you've posted that paragraph about 50 times. And it still doesn't say that Saddam and Al Qaeda were affiliated.

What it says is that Saddam was willing, in vary rare circumstances, to use individual people who were in some was associated with Al Qaeda, if he thought there was a good enough reason to deal with somebody he didn't trust.

By that standard, there's a "link" between the US and the KGB. (I think it's a pretty safe bet that at least once in our history, the CIA has had a dealing with a person who was associated with the KGB in some way.)

Notice the sentence


This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations.

Gee, how come it doesn't just say "there was a link"? How come all the "creates the appearance of" disclaimers?

Could it perhaps be because even the paragraph that you're touting as absolute proof of a link, isn't willing to say what you desperately want it to say?

[MurrayH81]

MM,


I have done some more preliminary viewing, and it appears to me that US intervention in that region of the world, from at least John F. Kennedy forward has been horribly bungled.

I cannot fault anyone in that area entirely for the problems.

It appears that during his early years as President, Saddam did very well for at least many of his people in terms of education, quality of life, increased infrastructure and modernization.

Somehow, during the Iran-Iraq war, things got very off track. Both sides using weapons sold to them by US, at the very least.

I am of the view that the instability in the area was at least partially the result of US intervention, policies and actions. The fears evoked by the strong Islamic Shia forces in Iran contributed mightily to the war situation.

When the war was finished, both sides had debts and destroyed infrastructure to deal with.

Is it any wonder that many muslims and arabs don't particularly care for us, and don't care if we experience death and suffering?

I have no idea of what the world would look like today if the Europeans and Americans had stayed out of the conflicts in the area, but I believe they would still be killing each other, instead of us.

Obviously, oil is the determining factor. If the world, led by the US does not immediately start the turn away from a petroleum based economy (with all that implies) we will be involved in wars and terrorism until the last drop is gone.

[Predicto]

Mike desperately wants Saddam and AQ to be intertwined because it validates an invasion that he supported and still supports.

The connections he highlights are minimal in the context of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. Some are speculative, but even for the few that are not, similar contacts could be found for every country in the Middle East - certainly the spooks in Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others had similar contacts. That is the nature of things over there.

Moreover, these minimal connections do not explain why the Administration sold the American public and the world a different bill of goods over why the invasion was necessary.

Most important, those minimal connections do not show why the need to invade was so urgent that we had to rush and do it, right away, right now, damn the torpedos full speed ahead STFU rest of the world.

There is a reason that the Administration itself has stopped trying to claim the kinds of things that MadMike continues to assert, even though it would be in their best interest not to quit if they had even a shred of a credible argument.

[Mad Mike]

And yet, you've posted that paragraph about 50 times. And it still doesn't say that Saddam and Al Qaeda were affiliated.

What it says is that Saddam was willing, in vary rare circumstances, to use individual people who were in some was associated with Al Qaeda, if he thought there was a good enough reason to deal with somebody he didn't trust.

By that standard, there's a "link" between the US and the KGB. (I think it's a pretty safe bet that at least once in our history, the CIA has had a dealing with a person who was associated with the KGB in some way.)

Notice the sentence

"This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations."

Gee, how come it doesn't just say "there was a link"? How come all the "creates the appearance of" disclaimers?

Could it perhaps be because even the paragraph that you're touting as absolute proof of a link, isn't willing to say what you desperately want it to say?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/de%20facto

de fac·to Audio Help /di ˈfæktoʊ, deɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation
–noun
1. in fact; in reality: Although his title was prime minister, he was de facto president of the country. Although the school was said to be open to all qualified students, it still practiced de facto segregation.
2. actually existing, esp. when without lawful authority (distinguished from de jure).

You were saying? :rolleyes:

[Predicto]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/de%20facto

de fac·to Audio Help /di ˈfæktoʊ, deɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation
–noun
1. in fact; in reality: Although his title was prime minister, he was de facto president of the country. Although the school was said to be open to all qualified students, it still practiced de facto segregation.
2. actually existing, esp. when without lawful authority (distinguished from de jure).

You were saying? :rolleyes:


You left out "in some way" which I think is even more relevant.

[Larry]

Somehow, during the Iran-Iraq war, things got very off track. Both sides using weapons sold to them by US, at the very least.

Just to nit-pick one portion of your post, but I don't see any particular reason to single out the US in that regard.

I recall reading that, during that war, there were 31 countries selling weapons to the combatants, and 29 of them were selling to both sides. (And, IIR, the US was one of the countries that wasn't selling to both. Remember, we haven't got along with Iran for some time, now.)

Not saying the US hasn't messed things up over there. Just pointing out that we're hardly alone.

[Mad Mike]

Mike desperately wants Saddam and AQ to be intertwined because it validates an invasion that he supported and still supports.

No. I want people to wake the hell up and face reality, even if it does not support their hatred for the war.

The connections he highlights are minimal in the context of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. Some are speculative, but even for the few that are not, similar contacts could be found for every country in the Middle East - certainly the spooks in Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others had similar contacts. That is the nature of things over there.

"Renewal and Jihad Organization
Secret Islamic Palestinian Organization established after the war. It believes in armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests. They also believe our leader [Saddam Hussein], may God protect him, is the true leader in the war against the infidels. The organization's leaders live in Jordan... when they visited Iraq two months ago they demonstrated a willingness to carry out operations against American interests at any time."

Moreover, these minimal connections do not explain why the Administration sold the American public and the world a different bill of goods over why the invasion was necessary.

Who gives a damn what reasons were given if it was the right thing to do? Would you rather do the wrong thing for the right reasons? Saddam had to go and more and more evidence is coming to light that make that perfectly clear, except for those too lazy to read or to invested in their pre-conceived notions to believe.

Most important, those minimal connections do not show why the need to invade was so urgent that we had to rush and do it, right away, right now, damn the torpedos full speed ahead STFU rest of the world.

Sure lets wait a few years and give Saddam time to corrupt the oil for food program more, get sanctions dropped, rebuild his military and train more terrorists. Then we can attack when it's even less likely we can get support. That makes sense. Got any more brilliant ideas?

There is a reason that the Administration itself has stopped trying to claim the kinds of things that MadMike continues to assert, even though it would be in their best interest not to quit if they had even a shred of a credible argument.

Yet the government reports that come out continue to show more and more that there was cooperation

"these similarities created more than just the appearance of cooperation. Common interests, even without common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat."

The one thing I will agree with... Bush=The poorest communicator EVER.

[Mad Mike]

You left out "in some way" which I think is even more relevant.

If your primary concern is splitting hairs to try to support your political positions I suppose you would. But if your primary concern is protecting America from terrorists, I think the fact that there was a link is the important thing. But hey, that's just me. :rolleyes:

[Larry]

Mike desperately wants Saddam and AQ to be intertwined because it validates an invasion that he supported and still supports.

The connections he highlights are minimal in the context of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. Some are speculative, but even for the few that are not, similar contacts could be found for every country in the Middle East - certainly the spooks in Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others had similar contacts. That is the nature of things over there.

Moreover, these minimal connections do not explain why the Administration sold the American public and the world a different bill of goods over why the invasion was necessary.

Most important, those minimal connections do not show why the need to invade was so urgent that we had to rush and do it, right away, right now, damn the torpedos full speed ahead STFU rest of the world.

There is a reason that the Administration itself has stopped trying to claim the kinds of things that MadMike continues to assert, even though it would be in their best interest not to quit if they had even a shred of a credible argument.

Even back before the invasion, when the war was being "sold" by the Administration, the analogy I used was that a War based on claims of self defense is similar to the claim of self defense when asserted by an individual.

I suspect that pretty much every culture on Earth recognizes a right to self defense.

But they demand that, in order to claim self defense, you have to be able to prove an imminent, credible threat.

They don't necessarily require you to prove the threat before you defend yourself. But they do demand that you prove it, later.

If you pull a gun and shoot somebody, then he better turn out to have a gun, or else his body better be found inside your home, where your door's been kicked in.

And if you intend to go over to your neighbor's house, kick in his door, and kill him, then there'd better be a bazooka in your neighbor's house, and it better be pointed at your house.

In the case of Iraq, we've kicked in the door of a house that's not even on our block. And people are trying to justify it by listing reasons like "well, he spent his paycheck on booze for himself instead of buying clothes for his kids", "he has, occasionally, been associated with people who are associated with organized crime", and "well, it looks like he might have tried to buy a drill press that could have been used to make a gun, if he'd only had gunpowder. And 10 years ago he was trying to figure out how to make a gun. And he was talking tough."

And yep. Every one of those statements are true.

But even if every one of them were true, and even if you ignore all of the qualifiers and the weasel words and the disclaimers, they still wouldn't rise to the level of "that's a good enough reason to invade a country."

A good enough reason is "Iraq was involved in the planning and preparation for an attack against Richmond, which would have resulted in over 1,000 deaths, and was less than 2 months away from conducting that attack".

Not "Memos suggest that Iraq may have been involved with individuals who were associated with terrorist organizations, in limited cases."

[MurrayH81]

Just to nit-pick one portion of your post, but I don't see any particular reason to single out the US in that regard.

I recall reading that, during that war, there were 31 countries selling weapons to the combatants, and 29 of them were selling to both sides. (And, IIR, the US was one of the countries that wasn't selling to both. Remember, we haven't got along with Iran for some time, now.)

Not saying the US hasn't messed things up over there. Just pointing out that we're hardly alone.

True, there were a lot of hands in that pot over there, including Soviet. I wasn't trying to tackle that issue, but the much narrower assertion that is being (at least tacitly) that the US (via our representative government) was "clean of hands" and we are being vicously attacked and targetted by "muslims", "arabs", or "terrorists" who we never bothered.

These pre-emptive war-mongers turn a blind eye to the at least 50 years that the Western Nations and other areas of the world have meddled, and created chaos in that area of the world, and act outraged when those entities/forces respond by sending some of it back.

I know we sold weapons to Iraq, and it seems that I recall that the Iranian Air force was flying F-4's, so while we may not have been supplying to both during the actual war, we we supplying to both prior to the war (regardless of if it was to the Shah - pre Khomeni or part of the Iran/Contra dealings).

[Predicto]

If your primary concern is splitting hairs to try to support your political positions I suppose you would. But if your primary concern is protecting America from terrorists, I think the fact that there was a link is the important thing. But hey, that's just me. :rolleyes:


Apparently it is just you. :)


Some of us think the quality of that link and the immediacy of a real threat is also significant in deciding whether to invade a soverign nation. Or else we would have invaded well over half the countries on the planet by now.

And if you want to talk about splitting hairs, look at your first four posts in this thread. They pretty much define the term.

[JohnLockesGhost]

So, MM, what's the word on those WMD's?

Wasn't the whole rationale behind the invasion to prevent the dangerous marriage of state-sponsored terrorists and state-sponsored Weapons of Mass Destruction? Turns out there were no weapons and Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism was barely visible.

[Chachie]

The only fictitious reason we invaded Iraq is the WMD reason. There are 50 real ones and none of them were to defend the United States. Also- None of them are paying off.

[Mad Mike]

Keeping this thread as a stockpile of info on Iraq's support of terrorism and contacts with al Qaeda....


Iraq, al-Qaeda and Tenet's Equivocation
By Christina Shelton -intelligence analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency from 1984 to 2006.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062901947.html


I summarized a body of mostly CIA reporting (dating from 1990 to 2002), from a variety of sources, that reflected a pattern of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda, including high-level contacts between Iraqi senior officials and al-Qaeda, training in bomb making, Iraqi offers of safe haven, and a nonaggression agreement to cooperate on unspecified areas. My position was that analysts were not addressing these reports since much of the material did not surface in finished, disseminated publications.

Tenet revealed in his book that the CIA's terrorism analysts "believed to be credible the reporting that suggested a deeper relationship" between al-Qaeda and Iraq but that the agency's regional analysts "significantly limited the cooperation that was suggested by the reporting."

[Larry]

Well, now, there's certainly a smoking gun.

"Some people within CIA believed that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a deeper relationship than other people thought."

[Destino]

Showing small bits of communication and minor examples of possible cooperation between the groups isn't going to make your points mad mike. To justify invasion you need to prove that they were working together entirely with the common goal of destroying the US. Not some low level contact that may have taken place.

Keep in mind that Iraq wasn't behind 9/11 and the people that man that was is still running around while we focus PRIMARILY on rebuilding a nation that had nothing to do with it.

[Larry]

Mike,

You know why Bush isn't pointing to those passages and saying "Look! I was right!"?

Because Bush knows that those things you're pointing at, aren't good enough reasons to go to war. They aren't even close. Even Bush's spinmeisters aren't willing to point to those things and claim that that's why we went to war. They know they'd get laughed at.

[Mad Mike]

Mike,

You know why Bush isn't pointing to those passages and saying "Look! I was right!"?

Because Bush knows that those things you're pointing at, aren't good enough reasons to go to war. They aren't even close. Even Bush's spinmeisters aren't willing to point to those things and claim that that's why we went to war. They know they'd get laughed at.

Larry,

You know the reason the press wont report the actual contents of the 90 page report? Neither do I. I just know that the american people deserve to read about sadam's PROVEN ties to terrorism and documents SHOWING support for groups associated with al Qaeda. I think the american people deserve to know the facts and decide for themselves if it is important. But I guess that's just me. :rolleyes:

[MurrayH81]

Larry,

You know the reason the press wont report the actual contents of the 90 page report? Neither do I. I just know that the american people deserve to read about sadam's PROVEN ties to terrorism and documents SHOWING support for groups associated with al Qaeda. I think the american people deserve to know the facts and decide for themselves if it is important. But I guess that's just me. :rolleyes:

Hey Mike, I would be willing to do that, but if I am going to make the effort, I also want to read everything else the government has on Iraq and the reasons we have done what we have done there. Bush spent the blank checks, and now he has to show me in full detail to get me back on board. It's kinda like the "little boy who cried 'wolf!''. He may have been right, but the villagers are hard pressed to believe him by the time he actually told the truth.

[mjah]

Even back before the invasion, when the war was being "sold" by the Administration, the analogy I used was that a War based on claims of self defense is similar to the claim of self defense when asserted by an individual.

I suspect that pretty much every culture on Earth recognizes a right to self defense.

But they demand that, in order to claim self defense, you have to be able to prove an imminent, credible threat.

They don't necessarily require you to prove the threat before you defend yourself. But they do demand that you prove it, later.

If you pull a gun and shoot somebody, then he better turn out to have a gun, or else his body better be found inside your home, where your door's been kicked in.

And if you intend to go over to your neighbor's house, kick in his door, and kill him, then there'd better be a bazooka in your neighbor's house, and it better be pointed at your house.

In the case of Iraq, we've kicked in the door of a house that's not even on our block. And people are trying to justify it by listing reasons like "well, he spent his paycheck on booze for himself instead of buying clothes for his kids", "he has, occasionally, been associated with people who are associated with organized crime", and "well, it looks like he might have tried to buy a drill press that could have been used to make a gun, if he'd only had gunpowder. And 10 years ago he was trying to figure out how to make a gun. And he was talking tough."

And yep. Every one of those statements are true.

But even if every one of them were true, and even if you ignore all of the qualifiers and the weasel words and the disclaimers, they still wouldn't rise to the level of "that's a good enough reason to invade a country."

A good enough reason is "Iraq was involved in the planning and preparation for an attack against Richmond, which would have resulted in over 1,000 deaths, and was less than 2 months away from conducting that attack".

Not "Memos suggest that Iraq may have been involved with individuals who were associated with terrorist organizations, in limited cases."
This is an excellent write-up.

We should give this to all future White House staffers at all levels, and all elected executives for that matter, and a thorough quiz should follow.

Fail the quiz, and you're done. Pass the quiz but forget the lesson, and you're done.

Of course, we're already supposed to have this. The American public is supposed to administer the quiz, and Congress is supposed to have the hook at the ready. :whoknows:

[Smoot Point Really]

Couple points:

Remember 5 years ago when they said we'd probably lose 10,000 soldiers taking Baghdad alone? As of the 19th of April, we've lost 4,040... Other allies have lost a total of 310.

Strategically speaking regarding the War on Terror, we now have two bases of operation on either side of Iran that we can launch attacks from if need be. Those who don't think this is a big deal can't be helped...

The "large picture" on why we needed to remove Sadaam was more a global strategy and not just a regional one. It proved that we were through with dealing with Terrorism in small measures, and we wouldn't just try to kill individual terrorists by launching bombs from hundreds of miles away. We wouldn't just attack those who had already attacked us. We'd put boots on the ground in the countries who were our enemies and supported terrorists... Countries like Iraq who had given a government office to Abu Nidal and whether serious or not had offered Osama Bin Laden sanctuary after September 11... Iraq had already destabilized the region once in a bit more than a decade, and the scandal-ridden sanctions that the UN imposed were beginning to expire. The floodgates to less restricted "new investment" would have opened to the Iraqi regime...

It wasn't just about WMDs and I can't remember the Administration ever saying that it was just about WMDs, but some Democrats can't be helped... I'm interested in seeing what facts the report on the IAF airstrikes on the Syrian Nuclear facility of September 6, 2007 produce:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/07/report-us-israeli-study-of-airstrike-on-syrian-nuke-facility-will-show-saddam-transferred-wmd/

Regardless, of what reason people need to justify the war... The real answer would've been strategic, not justice/revenge. We've allowed terrorists to hit us in the 80s and 90s with only small, measured responses. Reagan and Clinton both ran away after being attacked by terrorists. After September 11, we can't go back to that policy again. No more lob of missiles into the desert as a show of "force"... Our enemies will only laugh at us. Who knows what damage that policy has already caused us?

[Bang]

So much misdirection.
It's really quite simple.
Going to war in the middle east meant that the largest potential military force that could and would oppose us had to be confronted and eliminated or neutralized.

Everything else is just window dressing.

~Bang

[Destino]

So much misdirection.
It's really quite simple.
Going to war in the middle east meant that the largest potential military force that could and would oppose us had to be confronted and eliminated or neutralized.

Everything else is just window dressing.

~Bang

The largest potential military force in the middle east is Iran, not Iraq. At the time we went to war with Iraq their ability to make war was already extremely diminished. The other problem is that is the obvious - lying to the people about why we need to go to war works against our system of government. "We the people" can't self govern if the government thinks it ok to simply lie to us whenever they need us onboard with something.

And none of that changes the fact that Rumsfeld/Bush had a ****ty plan that allowed Iraq to fracture.

[Midnight Judges]

Couple points:

Remember 5 years ago when they said we'd probably lose 10,000 soldiers taking Baghdad alone?

Nope.

[Larry]

Couple points:

Remember 5 years ago when they said we'd probably lose 10,000 soldiers taking Baghdad alone?

Remember 5 years ago when they said we'd be welcomed with candy and flowers?

There were a lot of people making predictions, pre-invasion. At the time I took great pleasure in pointing out the contradictions in them.

The Republicans kept claiming that

It doesn't matter whether Saddam has WMDs yet. We have to invade even if he doesn't have any, because everybody knows that the instant he gets any, he'll give them to Ossama, who'll use them in the US.
And he's had them for 12 years. (And not given them to Ossama.)


And the Democrats were saying

Saddam doesn't have any WMDs.
And if we invade, he'll use WMDs against us.

[joe]

Why do we continue to debate the merits of going to war in Iraq? That ship has sailed.

The real incompetence of the Bush administration is that W did not listen to his dad, whom I refer to as "the good Bush." When asked why he turned the tanks around on the road to Bagdad during operation Desert Storm, Bush stated that "There is no exit strategy."

There is still no exit strategy and this is the sole fault of the current president. The buck stops with him.

We should have been able to figure a way out by now.

[Smoot Point Really]

Regardless of whatever people believe the "excuses" were for going to war (and there were a lot of reasons/excuses given at the time), the overall strategy was sound given:

1) the pre-9/11 policy as a response to terrorism by Clinton and Reagan.
2) the lack of a "base" of operations in the middle east. The Saudis weren't a reliable base and they needed a "message" as much as anyone in the middle east.
3) Iraq had a long history of failed diplomacy.

If we had only hit Afghanistan, it would've only sent a message of justice/retribution... It wouldn't have sent a message that we were done with simply "reacting" to global terrorism.

[Smoot Point Really]

There is still no exit strategy and this is the sole fault of the current president. The buck stops with him.

What is the exit-strategy for Germany? Japan? South Korea? We exit when we are no longer needed... I haven't heard the Bush administration say anything different.

[Bang]

The largest potential military force in the middle east is Iran, not Iraq. At the time we went to war with Iraq their ability to make war was already extremely diminished. The other problem is that is the obvious - lying to the people about why we need to go to war works against our system of government. "We the people" can't self govern if the government thinks it ok to simply lie to us whenever they need us onboard with something.

And none of that changes the fact that Rumsfeld/Bush had a ****ty plan that allowed Iraq to fracture.
Definitely a ****ty plan, no argument. And they tried to do it on the cheap. No argument they've botched it.

The difference I'd say between Iran and Iraq for these purposes is the moderate nature of Iran's people for one, and the hope they can handle their own issues democratically. (which in large part they do.) Iraq's people had no such option.
It can also be argued that selling the invasion of Iraq to the world is much easier because of the unpopular dictator.
As we've seen, Iran has taken a more subtle (or not so, depends on how you want to look at it) role in the war so far. They have avoided direct military confrontation. Would Saddam have done the same? Maybe, maybe not,, he was a lot of bluster and big-stick waving.

Perhaps his force was not the largest as you mention, but in my opinion it was the more likely of the two to get involved.

(and it should be noted, all of this is simply my opinion on things. I haven't got a shred of evidence to back up my theories of why we chose to attack first in Iraq. It just seems to make sense to me.)

~Bang

[alexey]

Oh my, Saddam didn't mind carefully using operatives affiliated with Al Qaeda for his purposes.

"affiliated," of course, could mean that they herded goats somewhere in Pakistan or Afganistan when they were 7.

Everything happening in Iraq between 1979 and 2003 can be connected to Saddam, and thousands of people can be claimed as "affiliated with AQ." So yes, of course there were some connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Now lets go smoke some more crack from them aluminum tubes.

[MurrayH81]

Regardless of whatever people believe the "excuses" were for going to war (and there were a lot of reasons/excuses given at the time), the overall strategy was sound given:

1) the pre-9/11 policy as a response to terrorism by Clinton and Reagan.
2) the lack of a "base" of operations in the middle east. The Saudis weren't a reliable base and they needed a "message" as much as anyone in the middle east.
3) Iraq had a long history of failed diplomacy.

If we had only hit Afghanistan, it would've only sent a message of justice/retribution... It wouldn't have sent a message that we were done with simply "reacting" to global terrorism.

I'd say your reasons/comments could be applied to many countries around the globe. Why didn't Bush take on China in that case?

[Mad Mike]

Oh my, Saddam didn't mind carefully using operatives affiliated with Al Qaeda for his purposes.

"affiliated," of course, could mean that they herded goats somewhere in Pakistan or Afganistan when they were 7.

Everything happening in Iraq between 1979 and 2003 can be connected to Saddam, and thousands of people can be claimed as "affiliated with AQ." So yes, of course there were some connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Now lets go smoke some more crack from them aluminum tubes.

From the report refering to Iraq and al Qaeda: Again this was unreported to the american people...


"these similarities created more than just the appearance of cooperation. Common interests, even without common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat."

Not herding goats. "HUNTING AMERICANS". If there was a similar degree of threat directed at your family, would you assume the best of those who might hurt someone you love?


In the first, from January 1993, and coinciding with the start of the US humanitarian intervention in Somalia, the Presidential Secretary informed the council member of Saddam's decision to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia."

? In the second memorandum, Saddam orders the IIS Director to revise a
plan the IIS director had previously forwarded to include setting up
operations inside Somalia.44 The overlap between bin Laden's and
Saddam's interests in Somalia provides a tactical example of the parallel
between Iraq and radical Islam: at the same time Saddam was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing.

Other documents show Saddam's terror organizations could be
deadly. They were willing to target not only Western interests but also to directly attack Americans. Uday Hussein reports to his father the results of one such terrorist strike that specifically targeted American aid workers with the UN


This and other attacks were not isolated incidents but part of a state-directed program of significant scale.

WTF is so hard to understand about that?

[Prosperity]

what I have gathered from this thread...

1. Osama and Saddam are both enemies of America
2. AQ and Saddam were kinda sorta loosely associated with the same people
3. None of this is new, nor "missed"

[Smoot Point Really]

I'd say your reasons/comments could be applied to many countries around the globe. Why didn't Bush take on China in that case?

1) China wasn't an enemy in the war on terror...
2) Diplomacy is still in play with China...
3) China is another Super Power... War would definitely be more messy than war with Iraq.

Let's compare with North Korea... That was an "axis-of-evil" state and had more of a WMD connection than Iraq.

1) Diplomacy was the only option... If we attack North Korea, the Chinese attack Taiwan.
2) Strategically speaking, North Korea is too far away from the "hot bed" of Terrorism (the Middle East)... Having a "base" from which to operate from is more important than disciplining a small country.

[JMS]

OMG!!! You are still pimping your information like it was real???? Even when every single government agency tells you that it was not there???? Normally, I tend to distrust government, but when they say something that hurts their credibility, I kind of believe them. You were taken to school when you posted your ludicrous assertions 4 years ago, i'm surprised you still believe that crap.


And your post is even more of a joke now, 4 years later. You, my friend, have placed yourself in the same lot as the loonies who think 9-11 was an inside job. I guess America is full of crazy people who will believe anything rather then admit they were wrong, thanks for showing us people like yourself are not a figment of the liberal mind, but you actually do exist. :thumbsup:

I think that's a little unfair. I mean on the eve of war the majority of the country believed their was a link. As recently as a few years ago a sizeable minority of the country still believed there was a link.

Currently though one must balance one anonomous source who refuses to go on record who claims to have seen a document which can not be produced with.


Every former white house staffer who would be in a position to know.
Every current white house staffer who would be in a position to know ( other than Cheney).
The President of the United States.
The last three Former CIA chiefs who were all part of this fiasco, both of Bush's Secretary's of State, Secretary of Tresury, and Anti Terrorism Czar.
The bipartisan 911 commission report.
The bipartisan Baker commision report.
General Patraus current commander in Iraq.
the last five chairmen of the joint chiefs.
Notable neo conservative polititians who architected the Iraqi war ( Crystal, Libby, Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith ) who have all come out and admitted they have no evidence of Saddam's involvment in 911 or meaningful collaberation with Al Quada.
Their just isn't any comparison between the evidence. Bush lied to move the country into war. Period. He might not have consistantly lied in the lead up to the war viewed with 20/20 hindsite, but it is no coincidence that 70% of the country believed in Iraq AlQada ties on the eve of the invasion. It's because that's the information Bush and his administration gave us.

[JMS]

Couple points:

Remember 5 years ago when they said we'd probably lose 10,000 soldiers taking Baghdad alone? As of the 19th of April, we've lost 4,040... Other allies have lost a total of 310.


Are you saying because it's not as bad as Bagdhad Charlie claimed that somehow this war was a good idea?

fact is Feith, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld said it would cost 10 billion dollars and we could get the Iraqi's to pick up the tab. They were off by almost three orders of magnatued as many economists and the world bank are projecting the war to cost 3 trillion dollars by the time we are done if we started pulling out today.

they also claimed we would loose a comparable number of soldiers as the first gulf war 130.... ( majority of those from friendly fire)...




Strategically speaking regarding the War on Terror, we now have two bases of operation on either side of Iran that we can launch attacks from if need be. Those who don't think this is a big deal can't be helped...


Iran doesn't have working ties with Al Quada either. Iran is a Shia country, alQuada is a sunny organization. They hate each other. In fact the only way to even get them to work together would be if we invaded Iran.



The "large picture" on why we needed to remove Sadaam was more a global strategy and not just a regional one. It proved that we were through with dealing with Terrorism in small measures, and we wouldn't just try to kill individual terrorists by launching bombs from hundreds of miles away.


Saddam had not been involved in a terrorist act against an American in a decade prior to the second gulf war. And that decade old terrorist act was a highly doubted attempted assasignation attempt on Bush sr after he left office reported by Kuwait, but not corroberated by any evidence after a decade of request by the secret service for that evidence.


There was no strategy which the adminstration has given voice too. And yet we have hundreds of billions of dollars gone out of the US treasure most going to sweet heart deals to administrations political allies. 3 Trillion dollars. Look no further than that to understand why we invaded Iraq rather than take care of Al Quada.

[Mad Mike]

Saddam had not been involved in a terrorist act against an American in a decade prior to the second gulf war. And that decade old terrorist act was a highly doubted attempted assasignation attempt on Bush sr after he left office reported by Kuwait, but not corroberated by any evidence after a decade of request by the secret service for that evidence.


Question: Are you blind, illiterate, or just stupid? I just showed you a ton of evidence that proves the above statement to be a complete lie. We have documents that prove you wrong but still you insist on defending Saddam.

Honestly, you make me sick.

[Smoot Point Really]

The purpose of my post wasn't really to debate the "Political" reasons that were given for going to war... There are way too many "anti-bush" fanatical rants on this topic. Sometimes the "ranting" gives people the impression that we're actually losing the war.

Regardless, I was talking purely from a "strategic" perspective... I've talked about my thoughts in this thread, feel free to comment on those details.


Saddam had not been involved in a terrorist act against an American in a decade prior to the second gulf war.

BTW, one of the terrorists involved in the 1st WTC bombing had reported ties to the Iraqi government. Look it up yourself and feel free to refute it... You did a great job of that already today! :) I'll try to find a solid link when I have the time, but I also don't really feel like being "thorough" on this discussion.


There was no strategy which the adminstration has given voice too. And yet we have hundreds of billions of dollars gone out of the US treasure most going to sweet heart deals to administrations political allies. 3 Trillion dollars. Look no further than that to understand why we invaded Iraq rather than take care of Al Quada.

Just because a strategy wasn't "given voice to" doesn't mean there wasn't a strategy. You do realize that AQ means "the base"... Their goal is to create a base to launch their dream of restoring the caliphate. That is the goal of AQ and that is why their name means "the base". In response to this, we have a very lame "base" in the KSA that never lets us launch attacks against our enemies and has political turmoil of its own dealing with the wahabi movement. Taking out Afghanistan is a show of "retribution", it is a show that we will "react" to terrorism, but not a show that we will "act". Hitting Iraq and establishing our own "base" inside ancient Persia (not along the outskirts like Afghanistan) is strategically a perfect counter to AQ.

The fact that our previous response to terrorism (by Clinton AND Reagan) was to either run or lob a few missiles... We had to show that we would do more than just "react"... This was the strategy and the reasoning. If you want to debate politics, I recommend DailyKos or LittleGreenFootballs... I couldn't care less what lawyers in suits say about it, to me it makes perfect strategic sense.

BTW, the cost of the war is large... However, there are benefits to our military when we spend money on them. We have battle-tested warriors and gear, for one...