An Essential War

[oracle]

<font>An Essential War (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110004882)</font>
Ousting Saddam was the only option

BY GEORGE P. SHULTZ
Monday, March 29, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

We have struggled with terrorism for a long time. In the Reagan administration, I was a hawk on the subject. I said terrorism is a big problem, a different problem, and we have to take forceful action against it. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan agreed with me, but not many others did. (Don Rumsfeld was an outspoken exception.)

In those days we focused on how to defend against terrorism. We reinforced our embassies and increased our intelligence effort. We thought we made some progress. We established the legal basis for holding states responsible for using terrorists to attack Americans anywhere. Through intelligence, we did abort many potential terrorist acts. But we didn't really understand what motivated the terrorists or what they were out to do.

In the 1990s, the problem began to appear even more menacing. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were well known, but the nature of the terrorist threat was not yet comprehended and our efforts to combat it were ineffective. Diplomacy without much force was tried. Terrorism was regarded as a law enforcement problem and terrorists as criminals. Some were arrested and put on trial. Early last year, a judge finally allowed the verdict to stand for one of those convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Ten years! Terrorism is not a matter that can be left to law enforcement, with its deliberative process, built-in delays, and safeguards that may let the prisoner go free on procedural grounds.

Today, looking back on the past quarter century of terrorism, we can see that it is the method of choice of an extensive, internationally connected ideological movement dedicated to the destruction of our international system of cooperation and progress. We can see that the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 2001 destruction of the Twin Towers, the bombs on the trains in Madrid, and scores of other terrorist attacks in between and in many countries, were carried out by one part or another of this movement. And the movement is connected to states that develop awesome weaponry, with some of it, or with expertise, for sale.

What should we do? First and foremost, shore up the state system.

The world has worked for three centuries with the sovereign state as the basic operating entity, presumably accountable to its citizens and responsible for their well-being. In this system, states also interact with each other--bilaterally or multilaterally--to accomplish ends that transcend their borders. They create international organizations to serve their ends, not govern them.

Increasingly, the state system has been eroding. Terrorists have exploited this weakness by burrowing into the state system in order to attack it. While the state system weakens, no replacement is in sight that can perform the essential functions of establishing an orderly and lawful society, protecting essential freedoms, providing a framework for fruitful economic activity, contributing to effective international cooperation, and providing for the common defense.

...

In November 1998, the Security Council passed a resolution declaring Saddam to be in "flagrant violation" of all resolutions going back to 1991. That meant that the cease-fire was terminated and the original authorization for the use of force against Saddam was reactivated. President Clinton ordered American forces into action in December 1998.

But the U.S. military operation was called off after only four days--apparently because President Clinton did not feel able to lead the country in war at a time when he was facing impeachment.

So inspections stopped. The U.S. ceased to take the lead. But the inspectors reported that as of the end of 1998 Saddam possessed major quantities of WMDs across a range of categories, and particularly in chemical and biological weapons and the means of delivering them by missiles. All the intelligence services of the world agreed on this.

From that time until late last year, Saddam was left undisturbed to do what he wished with this arsenal of weapons. The international system had given up its ability to monitor and deal with this threat. All through the years between 1998 and 2002 Saddam continued to act and speak and to rule Iraq as a rogue state.

President Bush made it clear by 2002, and against the background of 9/11, that Saddam must be brought into compliance. It was obvious that the world could not leave this situation as it was. The U.S. made the decision to continue to work within the scope of the Security Council resolutions--a long line of them--to deal with Saddam. After an extended and excruciating diplomatic effort, the Security Council late in 2002 passed Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam one final chance to comply or face military force. When on December 8, 2002, Iraq produced its required report, it was clear that Saddam was continuing to play games and to reject his obligations under international law. His report, thousands of pages long, did not in any way account for the remaining weapons of mass destruction that the U.N. inspectors had reported to be in existence as of the end of 1998. That assessment was widely agreed upon.

That should have been that. But the debate at the U.N. went on--and on. And as it went on it deteriorated. Instead of the focus being kept on Iraq and Saddam, France induced others to regard the problem as one of restraining the U.S.--a position that seemed to emerge from France's aspirations for greater influence in Europe and elsewhere. By March of 2003 it was clear that French diplomacy had resulted in splitting NATO, the European Union, and the Security Council . . . and probably convincing Saddam that he would not face the use of force. The French position, in effect, was to say that Saddam had begun to show signs of cooperation with the U.N. resolutions because more than 200,000 American troops were poised on Iraq's borders ready to strike him; so the U.S. should just keep its troops poised there for an indeterminate time to come, until presumably France would instruct us that we could either withdraw or go into action. This of course was impossible militarily, politically, and financially.

Where do we stand now? These key points need to be understood:

<ul type="square"> There has never been a clearer case of a rogue state using its privileges of statehood to advance its dictator's interests in ways that defy and endanger the international state system.

The international legal case against Saddam--17 resolutions--was unprecedented.

The intelligence services of all involved nations and the U.N. inspectors over more than a decade all agreed that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to international peace and security.

Saddam had four undisturbed years to augment, conceal, disperse, or otherwise deal with his arsenal.

He used every means to avoid cooperating or explaining what he has done with them. This refusal in itself was, under the U.N. resolutions, adequate grounds for resuming the military operation against him that had been put in abeyance in 1991 pending his compliance.

President Bush, in ordering U.S. forces into action, stated that we were doing so under U.N. Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687, the original bases for military action against Saddam Hussein in 1991. Those who criticize the U.S. for unilateralism should recognize that no nation in the history of the United Nations has ever engaged in such a sustained and committed multilateral diplomatic effort to adhere to the principles of international law and international organization within the international system. In the end, it was the U.S. that upheld and acted in accordance with the U.N. resolutions on Iraq, not those on the Security Council who tried to stop us.[/list]
...


Click here to read more (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110004882)

[Warlady]

This belongs in the Hall of Fame when it's done here.

[DesertFox]

I'm on it.

[Warlady]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Celebraman]

An excellent, superbly written article. George Shultz knows exactly what he's talking about.

[Triller]

I disagree a lot with that article

My main disagreement is the way that an article on terrorism has been put above an article on Iraq, as if the two have any link whatsoever. They don't

I also see that article has made a number of over-statements about the understanding of Iraqs WMD situation. Instead of the truth which was that certain WMD were unaccounted for, the article makes the brazen assertion that such WMD "were known to exist". There were no certainties about Saddams WMD position, it was only the US administration that constantly claimed certainty on the matter. The UN and inspection teams certainly didn't claim certainty.

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
Triller said:
My main disagreement is the way that an article on terrorism has been put above an article on Iraq, as if the two have any link whatsoever. They don't

[/ QUOTE ]

There is tons of evidence that Saddam harbored, trained, financed, and armed al Qaeda and other terrorist groups such as Hamas. If you would but open you eyes and mind, you would know that.

[ QUOTE ]
I also see that article has made a number of over-statements about the understanding of Iraqs WMD situation. Instead of the truth which was that certain WMD were unaccounted for, the article makes the brazen assertion that such WMD "were known to exist". There were no certainties about Saddams WMD position, it was only the US administration that constantly claimed certainty on the matter. The UN and inspection teams certainly didn't claim certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

That whole paragraph is a pack of lies, especially your claim that "it was only the US administration that constantly claimed certainty on the matter." Not only did the UN inspectors state categorically that Saddam had WMDs, it also passed more than 15 resolutions ordering Saddam to destroy those weapons and show proof that he had done so. Saddam failed to do either, thus the Iraq War became an absolute necessity.

Since everyone in the world knew that Saddam had WMDs, the only question that must be asked is "Where are they?" There are only 4 possible answers:

1) They are still hidden somewhere in Iraq. David Kay quit his search for WMDs after only 10 of 130 potential sites had been searched, so it's likely that many or most of them are still in Iraq.

2) They were moved to Syria, Labanon, or Iran. David Kay was given maps of Syria and Lebanon showing the coordinates of locations where Saddam's WMDs had been hidden before the war. He was also provided evidence that convoys of tanker trucks were traveling from Iraq to those sites in Syria and Lebanon before the war. So, it's likely that many or most of of Saddam's WMDs are at those sites.

3) They were distributed to terrorist cells around the world before the war. We had all better be praying that that isn't where Saddam's WMDs are.

4) All of the above.

Here is a partial list of those who knew that Saddam had WMDs before the Iraq War:

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - JOHN KERRY, Jan. 23, 2003

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - BOB GRAHAM, Dec. 8, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - HILLARY CLINTON, Oct. 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - HENRY WAXMAN, Oct. 10, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- JAY ROCKEFELLER, Oct. 10, 2002

"Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." - PATTY MURRAY, Oct. 9, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - JOHN KERRY, Oct. 9, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - ROBERT BYRD, Oct. 3, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - TED KENNEDY, Sept. 27, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - AL GORE, Sept. 23, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - AL GORE, Sept. 23, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - CARL LEVIN, Sept. 19, 2002

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by BOB GRAHAM and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Clinton Secy. of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - NANCY PELOSI, Dec.16, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -Letter to President Clinton, SIGNED BY CARL LEVIN, TOM
DASCHLE, JOHN KERRY, AND OTHERS, Oct. 9, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - SANDY BERGER, Clinton National Security Advisor, Feb. 18, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue stare will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Feb. 18, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - PRESIDENT CLINTON, Feb.17,1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - PRESIDENT CLINTON, Feb. 4, 1998

[FluffyDoomBunny]

[ QUOTE ]
There were no certainties about Saddams WMD position, it was only the US administration that constantly claimed certainty on the matter. The UN and inspection teams certainly didn't claim certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

French President Jacques Chirac, 2 TV, Paris, responding to the destruction of Saddam's WMD which even France believed he had:

"To the last, France, with many other countries, strove to persuade [people] that the necessary disarmament of Iraq could be obtained by peaceful means. These efforts did not succeed. Whatever the duration of this conflict, it will have serious consequences for the future."

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, responding to the start of the war in Iraq and the belief that Iraq had WMDs:

"At this time, based on this belief, I understand and support the start of the United States' military action."

German Defence Minister Peter Struck speaking about the weapons inspectors and their search for WMDs which begs the question, if no one believed he had them why would they need "more time"?

"One should have given the inspectors more time."

Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma speaking on the possible use of Iraqi WMDs against their own people.

"Ukraine will not participate in the military operation, but will offer assistance to protect the civilian population in the combat zone from the possible use of biological, chemical or radioactive weapons"

[jag]

Yeah right, whatever. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smack.gif

[Naturalized-Texan]

I forgot to mention that a few months prior to the Iraq phase of the War on Terrorism Hans Blix reported to the UN that Iraq was in material breach of UN Resolution 1441 paving the way for the coalition invasion of Iraq. in that report Blix stated that Saddam had failed to to destroy his WMDs and show proof that he had done so by the deadline set by the UN.

[DesertFox]

Triller, you readin' this stuff? It disproves everything you said.

[Triller]

I've read it all, unfortunately

[ QUOTE ]
Naturalised Texan wrote: There is tons of evidence that Saddam harbored, trained, financed, and armed al Qaeda and other terrorist groups such as Hamas. If you would but open you eyes and mind, you would know that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's utter rubbish. You have clearly been reading too many speculative over hyped, tenuous links from the over-emotional, knee-jerk media and not enough of the numerous corrections they have to make when their initial speculations turn out wrong
Go on provide this "tons" of evidence that Saddam "harbored, trained, financed, and armed" Al Qaeda. From the way you (over) speak it, one would think Saddam was in command of Al Qaeda himself!
Saddam has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, the bush administration, the blair administration all say as much.
No doubt you can reach to the depths of the internet to find tales and legends of meetings in dark shadowy alleyways between Mr A and Mr B to "prove" your point, but you wont come up with anything solid because it just doesn't exist

(or perhaps you will remind me that saddam sent money to the families of suicide bombers in palestine, as if that is in anyway a connection with al-qaeda)

[ QUOTE ]
Naturalised Texan also wrote: Not only did the UN inspectors state categorically that Saddam had WMDs, it also passed more than 15 resolutions ordering Saddam to destroy those weapons and show proof that he had done so. Saddam failed to do either, thus the Iraq War became an absolute necessity.

[/ QUOTE ]

They stated he might have WMD. I didn't see them state he definitely 100% had them, only the pro war politicians were doing that. That was the point of the inspections before the war, to make sure Saddam was complying. If we knew there were WMD the inspections would have been pointless
The Iraq war was never an absolute necessity, only in the minds of those who wanted a war. Play with a few tanks and aircraft, big bangs, very exciting I agree, but there was no imminent threat. Saddam's capabilities were the lowest they had ever been, his army was a shell of what it had been in '91

[ QUOTE ]
Naturalised Texan wrote: Since everyone in the world knew that Saddam had WMDs, the only question that must be asked is "Where are they?" There are only 4 possible answers

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that all of your answers require a large amount of logistics and manpower involved, yet noone involved in these weapons has come forward. The Iraqi scientists captured seem adament that the weapons programmes were shut down years ago and I cannot see why it is in their interest to lie now Saddam has gone.
The real possible answer is that Saddam destroyed them but didn't record it properly and therefore couldn't prove it. Yes Saddams a genocidal moron, but imminent threat my ass

[ QUOTE ]
Naturalised Texan wrote: 3) They were distributed to terrorist cells around the world before the war. We had all better be praying that that isn't where Saddam's WMDs are.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's as fairy tale like as claiming Saddam sent them too the moon on an invisible stealth rocket.

And what do I care what a load of liberal politicians say on the matter?

[ QUOTE ]
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - JOHN KERRY, Jan. 23, 2003

[/ QUOTE ]

When John Kerry says something it is usually wrong. You do nothing but dig away the credibility of your argument that Saddam was a threat by quoting kerry!

[Timberwolf]

You sniveling twit...

Tex does nothing to undermine HIS credibility...he quite effectively trash's Skerry Doo's, though.

Look at the list of those quoted in his post...they are ALL leaders of the dimocrapic party. They ALL assert that Saddam had WsMD.

Were they lying then....or are they lying now? Considering the FACT that Saddam admitted having them in '91 suggests to me that they are lying NOW.

Credibility...they have none.

As for Saddam destroying the WsMD and not documenting it...WTF are you? An imbecile? The UN resolutions (all 18 of them) REQUIRED Saddam not only to destroy his stockpiles and dismantle his programs for developing more, but to DOCUMENT said actions!!! Please develop a rational thought process before further commenting upon those issues of which you clearly have no grasp.

Good job, Tex...ya nailed it on that one.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Here are just few links to prove Saddam's WMDs and to prove the Saddam-al Qaeda connection:

Dr. Kay Had Maps with Coordinates of WMD Hiding Places in Syria (http://www.iraqinews.com/cgi-script/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Editorials.db&amp;command=viewone&amp; id=4&amp;op=t)

Pesticides, Precursors, and Petulance (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3453)

Case Not Closed: Iraq’s WMD Stockpiles (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3399)

Iraq's al-Qaeda Connection (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7636)

The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections (http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html)

Saddam's al Qaeda Connection (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp)

Case Closed: Iraq-al Qaeda Connection (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp)

The Iraqi connection (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html)

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml&amp;sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html)

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

[FluffyDoomBunny]

Also note that according to the UNs own documents (from UNSCOM) in January 1999 the following items previously admitted to were not accounted for:

* “ up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent;
* "up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, including approximately 300 tonnes which, in the Iraqi chemical warfare programme, were unique to the production of VX;
* "growth media procured for biological agent production (enough to produce over three times the 8,500 litres of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured);
* "over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents.”

Source (http://www.theestimate.com/public/121302.html)

Even CNN was on this when they reported that in 1995 Iraq admitted to producing approximately 8,500 litres of Anthrax
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/10/16/anthrax.timeline/)

These results are based upon Iraq's own admission to having WMDs and threats to use them from time to time. If Iraq lied in an attempt to make itself look stronger that is Iraq's fault. Not ours. Intelligence is gathered in only one way; from people and what they say, what they do and what they put in writting.

If Iraq says the had it, put it in writting, and acted like they had WMDs and it was confirmed from enough sources then you have to believe that they had it from an intelligence standpoint. Because there is absolutely no other way to gather intelligence.That is of course unless you have developed some great new mind reading device.

[Timberwolf]

Oh shit...there you guys go confusing the liberal with facts again. Bad!! Bad, I say!!!

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[Triller]

[ QUOTE ]
As for Saddam destroying the WsMD and not documenting it...WTF are you? An imbecile? The UN resolutions (all 18 of them) REQUIRED Saddam not only to destroy his stockpiles and dismantle his programs for developing more, but to DOCUMENT said actions!!! Please develop a rational thought process before further commenting upon those issues of which you clearly have no grasp.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care about UN resolutions and neither do you, the UN never had any credibility so I don't understand why you feel you must uphold their words now. Since when have you decided that all UN resolutions must be enforced to the letter? There are plenty outstanding

The war was fought under the pretences of WMD that the US and UK administrations told us as citizens they *knew* existed and presented an imminent threat. Surely you cannot deny that the barage of "revelations" leaked to the media about Saddams arsenal was just an effort to scare the public into backing the war. Remember the arial drones that could unleash biological and chemical weapons onto cities? Or the mobile biological trucks that could be moved and hidden? Saddams efforts to aquire nuclear material from south africa?
Arial drones were disproven, mobile biological trucks were disproven, saddams nuclear program was disproven (far from him having a nuke in a few years time as we were were told). Amazing claims were disproven, weapons were not found. Saying they were whisked away in the night just isn't convincing after all the dancing and games about them before the war

So I really do not care about UN resolutions. This is about the imminent threat we were told that Saddam posed and the *way* the case for war was presented to us, read propaganda. That is why afterall the preperations for war were pushed forward so quickly. All I see is politicians who wanted a war. All I see is how different the intelligence agencies threat analysis of Iraq was in 2003 compared to 2001, how much certainty had replaced the previous lack-of with no explaination why

[FluffyDoomBunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Timberwolf said:
Oh shit...there you guys go confusing the liberal with facts again. Bad!! Bad, I say!!!

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it hardly seems fair. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

[FluffyDoomBunny]

Hey TW notice how he completely ignored my previous post containing direct statements from foreign leaders admitting they also knew Saddam had WMDs?

[Triller]

Give up naturalised texan, you cite newspapers just as I predicted citing tales of Mr A meeting Mr B in shadowy circumstances. Apparently newspapers "stumble" across this information in documnets in unnamed abandoned Iraqi govermnet offices.

Perhaps instead you should get the word from the intelligence agencies which are far more reliable than the media. CIA say no Saddam Al-Qaeda link. How can you disagree with that?

[FluffyDoomBunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Triller said:
This is about the imminent threat we were told that Saddam posed and the *way* the case for war was presented to us, read propaganda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey um Triller, President Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. He said, and I quote, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" - President George Bush (January 2003, State of the Union)

The part in bold is the text you are deliberately misquoting.

[Triller]

Didn't ignore it fluffydoombunny, just didnt respond to it. You were nitpicking at what I said

I said: "it was only the US administration that constantly claimed certainty on the matter"

And it was the US administration that **constantly** claimed certainty on the matter. I accept that a lot of countries assume iraq had WMD, which is different than thinking iraq *definitely* had WMD. I was arguing about the way that WMD possession was pressed as absolute fact to everyone

I was not quoting when I used the phrase "imminent threat", I was refering to things such as the 45 minute attack claim which certainly did press the case for war as urgent (at least in this country)

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
The war was fought under the pretences of WMD that the US and UK administrations told us as citizens they *knew* existed and presented an imminent threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep spreading your bullshit deeper and deeper. No one, and I mean NO ONE, ever said that the threat was imminent. That is a typical left-wing lie.

Here is the truth:

2003 State of the Union (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html)

[ QUOTE ]
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The Left took the three words in bold in the above paragraph out of context and gleefully said, "Lookie! Lookie! Bush said that the threat is imminent," completely reversing what President Bush actually said. Typical leftist intellectual dishonesty.

[Triller]

But:

[ QUOTE ]
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
Donald Rumsfeld 9/19/02

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
Donald Rumsfeld 9/18/02

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
President Bush 11/23/02

[/ QUOTE ]

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
Triller said:
Give up naturalised texan, you cite newspapers just as I predicted citing tales of Mr A meeting Mr B in shadowy circumstances. Apparently newspapers "stumble" across this information in documnets in unnamed abandoned Iraqi govermnet offices.

Perhaps instead you should get the word from the intelligence agencies which are far more reliable than the media. CIA say no Saddam Al-Qaeda link. How can you disagree with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong! The link starting with the words "Case Closed" quotes actual American intelligence hard evidence of the Saddam-al Qaeda link. This was the result of two DIA intelligence analysts sitting at computers and viewing every piece of information showing Saddam-al Qaeda cooperation dating back to 1993. It's solid proof! There is no way to honestly deny that evidence. For even more details, read Rumsfeld's War by Rowan Scarborough, particularly pp. 40-1.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Thanks for proving our point that no one ever said that the threat was imminent! You're finally getting it right.

[FluffyDoomBunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Triller said:
Didn't ignore it fluffydoombunny, just didnt respond to it. You were nitpicking at what I said

I said: "it was only the US administration that constantly claimed certainty on the matter"

And it was the US administration that **constantly** claimed certainty on the matter. I accept that a lot of countries assume iraq had WMD, which is different than thinking iraq *definitely* had WMD. I was arguing about the way that WMD possession was pressed as absolute fact to everyone

I was not quoting when I used the phrase "imminent threat", I was refering to things such as the 45 minute attack claim which certainly did press the case for war as urgent (at least in this country)

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't ignore it, you just didn't respond? Ignore: "to refuse to take notice of". Don't sit there and try to play semantics on words, I'll nail you every time if you try that Clintonesque bs.

And you still are sitting there ignoring that there were indeed other foreign leaders that DID time and again, despite your claims to the contrary, admit that Saddam had WMDs, that he had to disarm, and that failure to do so was in fact a threat to the world.

Also please note that I quoted you EXACTLY when you sid we were told that the reason for the war was the "imminent threat". However the direct quote provided from President Bush himself shows clearly that that was NOT the case he was making.

However you are still out there touting that the war was because of an "imminent threat" someone said something about quick launch capabilities of the WMDs. That is not an "imminent threat". Imminent means that the threat was ready to take place, that the order had already been given to launch WMDs against the US or other countries. The fact that such an order could have been given and then could have been potentially carried out in an hour or so is not what imminent means.

I know you would really like it to mean that to help your argument. However, rewritting the English language isn't going to work.

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
I was not quoting when I used the phrase "imminent threat", I was refering to things such as the 45 minute attack claim which certainly did press the case for war as urgent (at least in this country)

[/ QUOTE ]

You intentionally misinterpreted the 45 minute attack claim. Any honest and reasonable person knows that the 45 minute attack claim ONLY dealt with the time it would take to launch an attack against foreign troops in Iraq or to launch an attack on a nearby country such as Israel. No one ever claimed, or even implied, that an attack could be launched on more distant countries like Britain or the U.S. in 45 minutes.

As far as the drone attack you mentioned, that threat could very well have been real if the drone had been delivered to a terrorist cell in or very near to the target to be attacked. The drone was small enough to be disassembled, placed in shipping containers, shipped to a terrorist cell, reassembled, armed, and aimed at a convenient nearby target like London or Washington.

[Timberwolf]

C'mon...a little less disingenuousness, please...your words...

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that all of your answers require a large amount of logistics and manpower involved, yet noone involved in these weapons has come forward. The Iraqi scientists captured seem adament that the weapons programmes were shut down years ago

[/ QUOTE ]
And, we're just supposed to take them at their word...with no proof. You're a brain damaged twit, if you'll accept such nonsense.

[ QUOTE ]
and I cannot see why it is in their interest to lie now Saddam has gone.

[/ QUOTE ]
We didn't have their input when we went there to oust him, now did we? Besides, who's to say they didn't have designs on rising to power in Saddam's absence?

[ QUOTE ]
The real possible answer is that Saddam destroyed them but didn't record it properly and therefore couldn't prove it. Yes Saddams a genocidal moron, but imminent threat my ass.

[/ QUOTE ]
Possible answer? You really oughta take this comedy routine on the road...you'd do well.

Right. Saddam destroyed all of his WsMD and provided no proof that he did so, knowing full well that an armed response was imminent absent said documentation. He may be a dispicable piece of shit, but HE ain't stupid.

[ibadreamer]

i hate to jump in and kick the liberal again as you all have done quite a good job so far, but what in the world are you thinking. just picking on any morsel to twist in a way that makes you believe that bush has some secret motive for going to war. it just doesnt make any sense. all you have to do is watch the news and you see that these people have been getting ready for this for awhile. i would guess that before its over we will see some of those none existing WMD's.

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
Triller said:
But:

[ QUOTE ]
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
Donald Rumsfeld 9/19/02

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
Donald Rumsfeld 9/18/02

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
President Bush 11/23/02

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
But WHAT?? What of these quotes?

You have not shown us that anyone has ever stated, "The threat is imminent". The exceptions are the liberal pieces of shit in Congress, and elsewhere, that seek to impugn the integrity and honor of President Bush...and they continue to lie about what he said to perpetuate the myth.

And you wonder why we despise liberals...sheesh!!

Warlady, Tex, etal...you guys have to thank these liberal pusbuckets. By making people like me defend President Bush against these baseless claims in the lame attempt to damage his honor and integrity, they are forcing us to "put our vote where our mouths are" and go to the polls in November and vote for GW.

*sniff* sniiiiiiiifffff* Wass dat Ah smell? It'z dat liberal Hazheet Mahdroors witnessin' a LANDSLIDE.

[FluffyDoomBunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Timberwolf said:
You have not shown us that anyone has ever stated, "The threat is imminent".

[/ QUOTE ]

Because to socialists anything that they think means "The threat is imminent" means "the threat is imminent". If President Bush got up at 2:00 AM and said that he had an "immediate need for a ham sandwich" they would claim that he said "the threat (from Iraq) is imminent".

If Vice President Cheney said "I have an urgent need to take a dump." they would claim he said "the threat (from Iraq) is imminent".

They think that because words are loose synonyms that they mean exactly the same thing. We've lost so much of the English language over the years with smaller vocabularies and the like that people don't understand how even words with similar meanings do not mean the same thing.

Imminent: ready to take place (Synonyms: impending, proximate; Related Word: approaching, coming, nearing, upcoming; brewing, gathering; pending; likely, possible, probable; ineluctable, inescapable, inevasible, inevitable, unavoidable, unescapable)
Urgent: calling for immediate attention
Immediate: occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss or interval of time : or : acting or being without the intervention of another object, cause, or agency

Then they focus so much on the term "imminent" that they forget about what "threat" means: an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage :or: an indication of something impending. The key word of course is intention. It is well known that Saddam intended to cause harm. He prooved it every time he shot at our planes and ducked UN weapons inspectors and by his own documents showed after more than a decade he had failed to destroy his WMDs.

They want to make the word threat mean something other than the intention to cause harm. They want to make the word threat mean that harm is actually being caused by a current attack of WMDs. But that is NOT what the word "threat" means either.

But then again this all goes back to the dumbing down of America.

[Triller]

I have been corrected now that the word "imminent" was in fact concocted by the media and wasn't used directly by the UK or US governments. I appologise for my mistake.

But one has to ask why the media used such a word in abundance at the time and which side it really profited. Could it be that "imminent" was an accurate representation of the way the US and UK administrations were spinning the threat from Saddam at the time? On the Iraq war both administrations were employing language of urgency and and immediate threat. "Pre-emptive" was required because Saddam would hit us with certainty in the future. Language used gave the impression that this time would be soon unless something was done.

The administrations fueled media hysteria and its nature of over-exageration by leaking this and that and dropping snippets of information. Speculative tales such as "Saddam might have a nuke in one year" and the 45 minute claim are good examples of major media articles that were based on junk. While the government certainly didn't put forward the lies directly, they were the source of those who consistantly did. Lets remember that the media were getting most of their information on Iraq from the governments. The governments wove the origins of each now discredited story and certainly didn't try and stop the propagation of false information thrown about by the media. It could be argued that the government in fact encouraged it.

Arial drones, nigerian uranium, iraqi links to 9/11. Plenty of inaccurate stories provided to the public by the media that originally came from the government. Not that the government lied, it was the media that did all the distortion and lying. Reports that were only intelligence speculation were iterated into fact by the media, reports without merit were given headlines with no background checks and later corrections were not given the time of day.

The end result was nations of ill-knowledged people who believed Saddam had nuclear weapons, a fleet of arial biological drones and active participation in 9/11. This played directly into the hands of those who wanted to push the war forward and therefore no effort was made to correct the medias (intentional) misinterpretations the was putting out such as the 45 minute claim.

It was a very clever propaganda trick, feed the media with scraps of sketchy information and rely on them to do all the over-exagerating and distorting for you.

When I question the justification of the war I am not weighing up the number of dead people that would have resulted with or without the war, for that can only be known with foresight. I am also not questioning that Saddam breeched UN resolutions or that he very well might have possessed WMD. I am questioning the trickery that was used to "persuade" the US and UK public into backing the war. If there was real justification there would have been no need for such trickery and because such trickery was used I question justification. The media are most to blame (as usual), but the governments indirectly manipulated the media as a propagandist tool.

I look back in 2000 when Saddam was considered only a power-stripped nuicense. Then I look at 2003 when he had suddenly elevated to the position of dark overlord of chaos. The only possible two explainations for this sudden shift in thinking is either 9/11 or a new US administration (or both). Still wondering if either are logical justifications in the shift of thinking on iraq, havent made up my mind yet

[Wyatt_Junker]

Mr. T, your entire post reads like an A-Team rerun minus the hallucinogens they used on B.A. approaching a runway terminal.

You sound so effeminate, what with all the hand-wringing of 'who shoulda known what, where, when'. I wanna slap you like the hysterical chick you are, then hand you a paper bag to hyperventilate in. You remind me of the spoiled brat who cries mommee when big bro whaps his knuckles across his skull.

**** the UN. **** Hans Blix. And **** France.

Bring back Vlad the Impaler, decorated in blood, holding a satchel of infidel heads over his shoulder like a Santa Claws infected with vampirism, his beard smeared and smudged with large flecks of rank offal.

Bring back the wholesale slaughter. The Roman road of terror, where crucifixions were as common as Toyota Corollas. You wanna bitch? Bitch in a wake of human heads and scores of the annhilated.

Your study of history is as piss poor as an 80 yr. old man's with a bad prostate. Compared to even our recent past, this Iraq liberation is as mild as lukewarm Coors Light. In terms of human cost, in terms of blood, in terms of what Vald the Butcher's used to meting out, America is the tamest, sanest, most civil nation on the planet not only currently, but throughout the human experiment.

Thank God for the Framers, because if it was up to me, I'd be there with Vlad, marching side by side listening to Caligula books-on-tape with my miedeval walkman and a rusty trident in the other. Smiling as I drove my bit into the Mohamedans! Thank God America is not ME! And yet you attack it like a pussy. Naivete like a virgin's trained forefinger.

Iraq is fulla brown hairy people who ascribe to Mohammed's Pedophile Plus, version 5.0 &amp; they're as whacked as the next brown hairy foil of that religious scam like the rest. I don't care if its Packing Stan, Serious, Leba None, I Ran or Saw Dee A Ray Be Uh. They're all brown hairy morons who bow down to the Moon lord and love to spill blood with the same zeal people in the 1950's bought hoola hoops. They love to siphon human plasma. Its a sickness. And the entire region loves to swill it, bathe in it, backstroke and irrigate in the red stuff.

Xenophobia isn't just a hot, leather-clad, warrior chick on cable TV. She's an entire religion with camel farts for window dressing.

[DesertFox]

Triller, the press in America is very Left-leaning and has been since the Seventies. The Left in America is Dimocrat. That's why the media deliberately distorted what Bush said about "imminent," and has repeated it over and over and over even after being corrected and corrected and corrected.

In 1992 people in the mainstream media were polled on how they voted. 89% voted Clinton. Even the media was surprised at that number, and since then media people have carefully hidden how they vote. They want it kept secret that the major media in America are Lefties.

[maxparrish]

Trilller,

On this one Wyatt is giving you good advice, buck up lad! Get a grip! What's going on in the UK to give you the willies (Jack Straw knocken on your door at night?)

It has been self-evident to those without mental short circuits. Its OBVIOUS what happened: Bush and Blair made the case that Saddam was a long-time threat and in need of regime change; they went through the UN as requested by every euro whimp; they gave the SOB another chance to prove he did not have WMD through inspections; the UN inspector reported they A) Did not get full cooperation as Saddam promised and B) he could still not determine if they had WMD. Bush and Blair said, okay this is the last time the SOB is going to jerk us around and OFFERED him santuary to avoid war...

THE question should NOT be "why dump Saddam NOW", its "WHY THE HECK DID IT NOT TAKE PLACE LONG BEFORE ?" Just because we tolerated a bad and dangerious policy for many years IS NOT an arguement to continue a bad and dangerious policy.

It was NEVER a matter of IF, but WHEN. Saddam Hussain was a uncertain, growing, and impending threat, one that would sooner or later, have to be eliminated. The sanctions were on the verge of collapse, France and Russia were violating it in any case, and Saddam was making furtive efforts to restart his programs - a virtual certainty AFTER sanctions were lifted and the troops went home.

You think this world is a children's fairy tale? I just don't get this whimpering and self-doubt...as if attacking Hitler in 1937 was "too early" and attacking him in 1939 was "too late" but attacking him in 1938 was "just right".

This is guessing about nuke bombs for despots and terrorists, we don't apply the three bears morality here - not if you care about 10s of millions of fellow citizens.

[Triller]

Well I just didn't see Saddam as a worthwhile war on terror target for the time and effort required. Perhaps Saudi Arabia would have been a better target, perhaps not using the same methods though
Until states like pakistan and india start losing weapons like russia, the major terrorist threat will always come from secretive and stateless terror cells, probably hidden within the very countries they will strike. I reckon places like the soviet union with its ill protected nuclear arms is a far greater threat in terms of good WMD falling into terrorist hands. Nothing Saddam was capable of producing couldn't have easily been done by al-qaeda themselves in caves in who knows where, or even in western countries they were based in.

If it were easy and quick to remove Saddam and get out then yes it might as well have been done. But I think events have and are showing that Saddam style brutality is the only way of keeping order in a place like Iraq. I doubt democracy cannot be imposed in a mere year by outsiders, it has to be slowly developed from the inside. Put a dictator back in charge and give em 100 more years of dictatorship. Let them solve the puzzle themselves rather than spoiling the answer for them. Otherwise you are just going to get a land of continuous instability and military coups where the eventual government turns out to be like Saddam anyway, but not necessarily friendly

[DesertFox]

You're talking good sense now, Triller.

But what do you do when these dictators allow terrorists to train on their terrain, to build bombs and make plans and meet with confederates from the safe haven of their states; and pay and otherwise encourage them to boot?

THAT is why we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq.

[Triller]

It sounds like we should have invaded iran or saudi arabia rather than iraq then

I dont think removing Saddam lowers any terror threat significantly, except to his own people. I think invasion of iraq and installation of democracy there is probably more significant as a strategic move as part of a long term plan for sorting out the middle east

[Naturalized-Texan]

You obviously aren't paying attention in class. Saddam harbored, financed, armed, and trained al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, it's a sure bet that the al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks were trained at the Salman Pak terrorist training base, 25 miles south of Baghdad. That is the only terrorist training base in the world where there is a fuselage of an airliner (a Boeing 727) and it was where terrorists were trained to hijack airliners using only pocket knives and box cutters (sound familiar?).

[Triller]

The whole story of the Salman Pak training base being a terrorist training camp was based on the word of two iraqi defectors. You talk of it like it is fact but there are major doubts about its validity. I notice it wasn't used by the UK or US administrations as an example of an iraqi terror link - probably because they realised the evidence was too weak

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
Triller said:
The whole story of the Salman Pak training base being a terrorist training camp was based on the word of two iraqi defectors. You talk of it like it is fact but there are major doubts about its validity. I notice it wasn't used by the UK or US administrations as an example of an iraqi terror link - probably because they realised the evidence was too weak



[/ QUOTE ]

The Boeing 727 fuselage is there as shown in satellite photos and according to the American forces that captured it. What other use could be made of a 727 fuselage at a terrorist training base than to train terrorists to hijack an airliner? You need to start using your logic. Oops! I almost forgot. Logic is completely foreign to l;eftists like you.

You may want to read The March Up: Taking Baghdad with the 1st Marine Division by Bing West and Major General Ray L. Smith, USMC (Ret.) for more details of the capture of Salman Pak.

[Triller]

I have read on quite a number of places that an aircraft fusilage is irrelevant for terrorist training, one is only useful for counter-terrorist training.
Think about it, you only need an aircraft if you are training storming one. You don't need an aircraft if you are only training how to take one over once you are already inside. Any building could be outfitted for that task.

The question I have is whether there is any evidence salman pak was a terrorist training camp apart from the testimony of two iraqi defectors?

[DesertFox]

Triller, you apparently have no military background.

When you're training to take an objective, you practice on "mockups" which mimic the actual objective in every way possible so as to address all sources of uncertainty. If the objective is a 747 (or other aircraft), it's a huge advantage to have an actual fuselage for practice.

[Triller]

no I dont have any military background. What do counter-terrorist trainings use if not actual aircraft?

[DesertFox]

They practice on military versions of civilian aircraft, re-outfitted to match the model they're training for.

[Triller]

ok but as far as i see there is no indication that the aircraft fusilage at salman pak was used for hijack training other than the word of two iraqi defectors that can not necessarily be trusted
While it could have been used for terrorist training it is a huge jump to assert that it definitely was

[DesertFox]

Not much else a defunct fuselage is good for, Triller.

[Triller]

I am not saying that salmen pak definitely wasn't used for terrorist training and of course saddam was brutal enough for me to easily entertain that he supported terrorism. It could have been used for terrorist training, but equally it might not have been. I have tried to look for information on it but it has been scarce to say the least. This is probably one of those things that will take a few years until someone puts the pieces together on the matter. People down in iraq at the moment obviously have more pressing business to deal with.

My problem isnt with you, its with naturalised texan who is implying I am retarded for not spotting that "it's a sure bet that the al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks were trained at the Salman Pak". I just dont see where that can come from with the information that is currently available

[DesertFox]

Then it's a question of "whom do you believe". You apparently prefer to believe the doubters, which means giving the benefit of the doubt to the terrorist side. N-T prefers to believe that that fuselage is there for the reason most such things are used, which is training of some kind. Not likely they were training stewardesses, and a fuselage is no use for training pilots. I guess they coulda been training baggage loaders, but it just doesn't seem likely.

[Naturalized-Texan]

If you don't believe that a terrorist training camp is for training terrorists, then you really ARE retarded!

Here are several links about Salman Pak:

Salman Pak - Iraq's Own Terrorist Training Camp (http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/826.html)

Photos Prove Connection Between Iraq and Al-Qaeda Terrorists (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/cold/photos_prove_connection_between_iraq_and_al_qaeda_ terrorists.guest.html)

The Capture of Salman Pak (http://www.photodude.com/weblog/2003/april/07_the_capture_of_salman_pak.shtml)

At Salman Pak: Iraq’s terror ties (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040703.asp)

Salman Pak: Iraq's Smoking Gun Link to 9/11? (http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/8/13/95502)

Interview with Sabah Khodada, Who Worked at Salman Pak (http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/830.html)

[Triller]

And again none of those sites offer any evidence that the site was a terrorist training camp. The only evidence remains the word of the two defectors supplied by the INC, an organisation who has a history of coming up with iraqi defectors who make up stories to try and get saddams regime overthrown http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1098742/posts

If you believe the stories of Iraqi defectors then why not the stories told by defectors who claim Saddam destroyed his WMD years before the war?

[DesertFox]

Triller, there is such a thing as credibility, and this report reinforcing that report, and the fact that there is no other good reason for having a 707 fuselage in a desert. Give the intelligence folks credit for having some, er, intelligence.

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe the stories of Iraqi defectors then why not the stories told by defectors who claim Saddam destroyed his WMD years before the war?

[/ QUOTE ]

What defectors? There have been no such reports. Besides, if Saddam had really destroyed his WMDs, why didn't he provide the proof to the UN so that he could have prevented his defeat and his capture? After all, that is all that would have been necessary to prevent the coalition's invasion of Iraq.

[Triller]

[ QUOTE ]
What defectors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam husseins brother in law, a general in charge of iraqs chemical, biological and nuclear programs defected in 1994 to jordan and spilled a lot of information about iraqs weapons programmes. He also reported that Iraq had destroyed its chemical, biological weapons and facilities, only retaining blueprints and information to restart such programs. He was subsequently killed when he later returned to Iraq
More reliably, several Iraqi scientists, who have no reason to lie now, have repeated this story and the complete lack of WMD found backs it up

If you are going to doubt the word of the iraqi scientists then I would ask why you do not doubt, not even slightly, the word of the two iraqi defectors who are the only source for the claim that salmen pak was a terrorist training camp

[DesertFox]

{Ahem}

Triller, there is such a thing as credibility, and this report reinforcing that report, and the fact that there is no other good reason for having a 707 fuselage in a desert. Give the intelligence folks credit for having some, er, intelligence.

[Triller]

So this terror link is based on an assumption? An assumption that a fuselage = terrorist training

So if I were to find an aircraft fuselage anywhere in the world am I to assume it definitely, conclusively proves terrorists have been using it?

and when you say give credit to the intelligence guys, I have seen no word on this by intelligence people, only politicians. I am betting there are intelligence people that would agree a fusilage does not prove terrorism

[DesertFox]

Are you really that stupid, Triller? Try reading my entire post, rather than skipping over the parts you don't like.

[Triller]

Your post was two sentences and I addressed both.

Sorry but the intelligence services have actually countered much of what the UK and US administrations have claimed in the past about iraqs WMD

[maxparrish]

Triller, I have also had my doubts about some of the pre-war intelligence assessments. However, I'd like to make a reasonable disinterested assessment of every report.

Salmon Pak remains murky (at least to me).

"Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said Marines raided the complex using information from captured foreign fighters from Egypt, Sudan and other nations. ‘The nature of the work being done by some of those people we captured, their inferences about the type of training they received, all these things give us the impression that there is terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak,’ Brooks said Sunday.”

Q: Who were these fighters, and what did they specifically say?

"We'll pull documents out of it and see what the documents say, if there's any links or indications," General Brooks said. "We'll look and see if there's any persons that are recovered that may not be Iraqi."

Q: Well were there documents and what did they say? Were there persons "recovered"?

Khodada (defector): "It's called the Division of Special Operations. ... This whole camp where their training is run by the Iraqi [security service]... The government organization [that] basically possesses or have control of the camp is the Iraqi intelligence. But different training people who come, they are headed or sent by different people in the Iraqi government."

Q: Khodada gives a detailed account and a map. Has any of it been corrobrated? (I believe his map was correct). Does anyone know of "the ghost"? Have any of the surrounding farmers (who may have been gov employees) been interviewed? What do the Feydeen training tapes show? What other "regular" military personnel were there that he knew by name?

Having read the links that are still working, it would seem (in order of confidence): 1) it was a camp for training military and paramilitary operations, including hijacking 2) it trained feydeen in terrorist operations 3) it may have had gulf terrorists in its training groups 4) it didn't seem to have Al Qaeda or 9-11 orgnizational connectons.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

So far, so murky

[anarchist666]

This war was essential.

1. There were no terrorists in Iraq before the war, now there are. This gives the CIA something to do!

2. There were no WMD's before the war, now we're doing covert operations to plant them there! This shows off how cunning our nation is, and other nations will respect us for our decietfullness.

3. The Sunni's admired us before, now they hate us. That means we have another ethnic group to kill off.

4. Our oil supply was being cut by the likes of OPEC, now we control one of the most vast oil resources in the world.

Folks, i could go on and on, but these 4 reasons should be enough to justify any war.

[DesertFox]

Get on back to 2d grade with those infantile jokes.

[tacitus]

Another f'ing college kid that thinks thay have all the answers.

[maxparrish]

You must be a renter, I can tell.

[Naturalized-Texan]

http://www.latimes.com/includes/ramirez/ramirez_20040413.gif

[maxparrish]

Okay, be forwarned, this is a rant. I've reached my tolerance level when bile starts to back up and acid reflux dominates my life:

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS IN IRAQ!

We've been in this dirt bag country for a year, 700 or so American soldiers are dead, we've poured tones of aide, rebuilt all their schools, oil plants, pipelines, etc. By ANY measure, materially and politically, they are better off than before Saddam - no more sanctions, no more torture chambers, no more genocide of marsh arabs, kurds, or anyone else.

WE"VE accomplished two of three goals: regime change and WMD resolution. The last, democracy, remains terribly difficult and bloody. Were sitting around tolerating militas by the bucketful, the dissolution of the Iraqi governing council for a UN appointed shill team, and taking casualties while waiting for the Iraqi flower children to make peace.

FRIG IT! It's over, we gave them Freedom, and as Ben F. said "we gave you a republic, see if you can keep it.".

When is this too much? When are we to pull up stakes and get out of this Muslim hell hole?

I say SCREW (hope that's not too strong) the god-damn peace makers. Wipe out, clean out, level, and plant Fallujah and Najaf. Exterminate them wholesale AND if the bloody ragheads all unite in anger than let them have their screwed up society (and kill a 100k on the way out).

Yet...we sit...and die...and wait...and plead...and die...and fund...and die...on and on

[Warlady]

[ QUOTE ]
anarchist666 said:
This war was essential.

1. There were no terrorists in Iraq before the war, now there are. This gives the CIA something to do!

2. There were no WMD's before the war, now we're doing covert operations to plant them there! This shows off how cunning our nation is, and other nations will respect us for our decietfullness.

3. The Sunni's admired us before, now they hate us. That means we have another ethnic group to kill off.

4. Our oil supply was being cut by the likes of OPEC, now we control one of the most vast oil resources in the world.

Folks, i could go on and on, but these 4 reasons should be enough to justify any war.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack
By John Diamond, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.

The Bush administration is using the evidence to strengthen its disputed prewar assertion that Iraq had ties to terrorists, including the al-Qaeda group responsible for the Sept. 11 attack.

USA Today: Iraq Sheltered Suspect in 1993 WTC Attack (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
U.S. teams in Iraq have uncovered some signs that a participant in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (search) may have received help from the government of Saddam Hussein after the bombing, Bush administration officials say.



Vice President Dick Cheney (search) first asserted that one of the bombers -- a U.S. citizen and one of the FBI's most-wanted terrorists -- received help from Iraq, although he offered little detail. Another U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said while some evidence has been uncovered, it was too soon to reach any conclusions.

Cheney, speaking Sept. 14 on NBC-TV's "Meet the Press" program, did not mention the suspect by name. Other officials have confirmed he was speaking of Abdul Rahman Yasin (search), who is accused of mixing the chemicals in the bomb used in the 1993 attack.

"And we have learned subsequent to that, since we got into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government, as well as safe haven," Cheney said.

Yasin fled the country after the 1993 bombing. He is the only man wanted for that attack who is still outside U.S. custody.

Saddam's regime said it had imprisoned Yasin since arresting him in 1994, and that offers to turn him over to the U.S. government were rebuffed in the weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

In 2002, he was interviewed on CBS-TV's "60 Minutes" at an Iraqi prison. He thus far has not turned up in postwar Iraq.

The U.S. official said some Iraqi intelligence files indeed suggested Iraqi support for Yasin after the 1993 bombing. But the official said it was too early to conclude what, if any, support he received.

Other U.S. officials contacted by The Associated Press would not expound on Cheney's assertion. Cheney's office did not return a call seeking comment.

Cheney said the man was Iraqi. In fact, Yasin, 43, was born in Indiana and holds U.S. citizenship, according to the FBI. He is of Iraqi heritage and moved there as a child, returning to the United States in 1992, according to the FBI.

Cheney's description of Yasin came after "Meet the Press" moderator Tim Russert asked him about Iraqi connections to Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which destroyed the World Trade Center.

"Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93?" Cheney said. "We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did in fact receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact."

Fox News: Iraq May Have Helped 1993 WTC Bomber After Attack (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98373,00.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the review of a book on the subject. In it is speaks about the "Wall" between the intelligence agencies. Remember the "Wall"? I think we should rename it the "Gorelick Wall". Thank you Bill Clinton...
<h1>
The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge</h1>

The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge > Customer Review #1:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loose network with a common thread?

Having read the diverse reviews of this book Im further convinced that every one has an opinion, just like a certain part of the human anatomy. After reading this very interesting book I came away further convinced of the current danger, future threat and just how far Hussein may go to avenge his defeat in the Gulf War. Before the horrifying events of 9/11 this book was released under the titile "Study of Revenge." That is exactly the point Laurie Mylroie goes to extensive research to try and prove. The fact is she cant exactly pin Hussein down but she presents a credible case. Considering the CIA, Feds and Government have the same suspicions but havent been able to prove it either, Mylroie ties some loose ends together for the reader to be the judge. One of the interesting parts of the book is how the various agencies seem to be their own worst enemy, each withholding information from one another instead of sharing for the common good. The information presented concerning the first WTC bombing is a fascinating study about an International conspiracy that quite possibly needed the intelligence of state sponsorship since some of these characters are little more than petty criminals prior to the bombing. Her point is that Hussein is able to discreetly sponsor without direct state involvement, thus placing any fingerprints on the dupes who carried out the actions. The information is presented complete with court documents, photographs and text from the trial of those responsible for the WTC bombing in 1993. The book is easy enough to follow, with a 2 year chronology of related events and a list of characters involved, including a mystery man who arrives to supervise the final stages of the bombing. Could this have been a member of Iraqi intelligence? Who really knows, what is clear is that Hussein feels there is unfinshed business to avenge the Gulf War. The author does have an agenda, presents her case, and maybe if someone in the governmnet had listened to her the WTC might be standing today. The warning signs appeared to have been everywhere. Mylroie sets the stage and takes the reader through a series of events that eventually lead up to the 1993 WTC bombing, all the while pointing in the direction of a greater evil. Even if you dont agree with her case, and the behind the scenes culprit being Hussein, the information provided concerning the 1993 conspiracy is concise, accurate and allows the reader to come to their own conclusion. Highly recommended for anyone interested in current events, terrorism or Saddam Hussein.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge > Customer Review #2:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raises excellent questions to be answered...

I love history.
I was a senior in high school when "Operation Desert Storm" began on Jan 17th, 1991. I had followed the situation since August 2nd, 1990 -- when Iraq invaded Kuwait. I followed it closely during the "Operation Desert Shield" phase, during the buildup of US forces in the Saudi Arabian desert. When the air campaign began, I was (like most Americans) overwhelmed by our air superiority and watched hours of footage of laser-guided GBUs fall down ventilation shafts on CNN. (Of course, since then I have become to realize that the majority of ordnance dropped then was dumb gravity bombs, not "smart weapons".) Regardless, the events of "Operation Desert Storm" was probably one of the main factors that lead me to enlisting for four years in the military are HS.

After "Desert Storm", I followed the current events of the WTC93 bombing as it unfolded, including the capture and trial of Ramzi Yousef. Everything in the book was precisely as I remember reading in the media at the time. She simply gives a linear presentation to those that did not follow it.

The hard facts that she presents are cited with credible sources. Much of her sources are the actual evidence presented at the trial, which was good enough for a jury to convict Ramzi Yousef.

While she does make some assumptions, she is upfront when she begins speculations -- which come across as being more "footnotes" than evidence for her case.

During this time, I had done a few rotations to the middle east in support of "Operation Southern Watch". Nothing in my experience would conflict with what she presents in her book (regarding the several air "contingencies" that occured with Iraq during this time period.) In fact, quite a few things would even further support her case.

While there is no clearly visable fire, she gives credibility for a *LOT* of smoke in her book -- and usually when there is smoke there is fire.

The morning of 911, my girlfriend had the television on and caught the "Breaking News" of the first aircraft that hit the WTC. On my way out the door, she told me to see what was on TV -- just in time to catch the second aircraft hit the WTC live. My very first reaction was: "Damn, the US will be going to Baghdad."




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge > Customer Review #3:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mylroie Gives the Facts

While a bit out of date, Mylroies book gives the facts connecting Iraqi intelligence to the first World Trade Center bombing. Documentation is given, especially for the movements and activities of Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Rahman Yasin and five other Islamic conspirators, whose activities and movements are tracked quite accurately -- for the ring-leaders Yousef and Yasin, all the way to Baghdad. Yousef is the same nasty character who later appears in terrorist activities (not fully discussed in Mylroies book) in connection with Khalid Shiak Mohammed, one of the two 9-11 terror planners, now in US custody. He is Mohammeds nephew, and fellow jihadist, and two other of the 9-11 terrorists were "brothers" of Yousef. Those who dismiss these findings are either in denial, or willing to traffic in lies, as I observe in several of the negative reviews here at Amazon.com. Richard Clarks new book fully distorts this evidence, deceptively. Strongly recommended along with "Masterminds of Terror" by Fouda and Fielding, which tracks the history of the 9-11 plotters, some of whom firstly appear in Mylroies book. The full history of these connections has not yet been written, but youll get the basics from Mylroie, and the Fouda/Fielding book.

web page (http://www.earth-religions.com/The_War_Against_America_Saddam_Hussein_and_the_Wor ld_Trade_Center_Attacks_A_Study_of_Revenge_0060097 71X.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

These are just a few examples of Saddam and his ties to terrorists. Terorrists who have attacked America. I believe since these articles were written this character was located in Iraq.

[Warlady]

anarchist you are going to have to either grow a brain or stop lying to remain a member of this board. I will not allow you to use my bandwidth to deceive people with your lies. No one is as stupid are you are portraying yourself to be.

[maxparrish]

Oh let ana...whatever stay. He's a harmless Moron. It's fun to shoot turkeys in the rain.

BUT I'd invite him (and you) to complete the past. YES the war was essential BUT is it essential now? How many more must die?

I'm a conservative. A lot of liberals say "we have to stay because we broke it". BS....we only should stay if its in our interests.

Is It?

I wonder.