The usual suspects were on the bandwagon all along

I get you Nimh. I don't dispute any of that.

I was challenged and I didn't meet the challenge. It's not like they are going to put highly sensitive intelligence on the Internet for me to point out to any of you. So my proof proves nothing except for the fact that high ranking officials know something and they're not telling us the specifics. Highly sensitive intelligence works that way. It's like yelling fire in a theater. It often creates unnecessary chaos. But, what they say gives me more than enough to go on because I have been in briefings and I've learned how they analyze intelligence while other people were getting their "Good Conduct" badges in the Eagle Scouts. I don't discount what is said by directors of the either the FBI or the CIA and I totally understand their need to say what they know without saying how they know.

As far as retractions and denials, I wish all retractions worked that way. If someone we collectively hate denies something, we might be more apt to believe the original statements. But, you are right again about new intelligence. It often makes us retract a statement or similate new findings into our thoughts and beliefs.

The misconception about what Bush said starts with the remark that he has no evidence that Saddam was involved in the September 11 attacks. However, Saddam's support of terrorism is well documented and I believe that it's our intention to eradicate terrorism. Bush never denied Saddam's connection to Al-Qaeda and he still, along with the CIA and the FBI, believes there is a strong one. The retraction here might only be that Bush has exacted his intelligence and came to the conclusion that Al-Qaeda operatives may have acted entirely within their own network on 9/11.

As far as arguing for war, you are absolutely right again. I told you I really can't dispute anything you said. A person who thinks that war is a viable end to a certain situation must be ready to prove it. This does sort of get us back on topic. CIA and FBI briefs displayed in earlier posts both point to Saddam's capabilities of having WMDs. The people who are naturally inclined to oppose Bush because of partisan lines had actually supported the notion of Saddam's WMDs programs. Among the list are Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bob Graham, Sen. Levin, Sen. Ted Kennedy...etc. Actually for most of the statements these politicians make, they are beyond any notion. "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." "He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building WMDs and the means of delivering them." "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WMDs."

Bush wasn't the only one who believed Hussein had WMDs. Bush's intelligence lead him to believe something that may still be true, but at this time appears to not be. OK. I can live with that. Terrorists have attacked us because of their misconceptions about who we are. With all of the intelligence we have to sort through and the literally thousands of angles we can possibly take, we needed to start somewhere. Why not with the guy who supports terrorism, won't listen to a damn thing we say and pissed us off in the first place. Ousting Hussein was not only necessary in my eyes, it gave me great joy to see. Now, other people are being more cooperative. A great benefit has been handed to the civilized world. A great credit is very deserving of the forces who accomplished their objectives. Now we need to keep our intelligences updated and networking so that we can strengthen our understandings of the terrorist's activities.

How is it that Bush is being called a mass murderer when he opted to go after the Hussein's who raped and killed people at will?

Just on this last bit, briefly ...

Saddam was a mass murderer. No doubt. (And I don't actually think you'll find a lot of people here who haven't said as much.)

Bush ... I wouldn't call him a mass murderer, myself. Lot of other people here do.

Why are people more vocal here about Bush? (Cause I think that's your question?) I guess its simply cause he's closer to home.

There's an egoistic element to that: he rules our lives - Saddam was far away. That's why every little scandal in American politics gets 3, 4 pages of posts here, while you can't interest jack in discussing the uprising in Georgia or the debasing dictatorships of, say, Turkmenistan or Syria - or even Cuba.

But there's also a strong element of dutiful civic awareness here. Bush is our leader. (Well, yours, anyway <grins>). It is a question of good citizenship to apply the highest scrutiny to one's own and one's own country's actions.

Its easy to decry the crimes of others. But the willingness to always scrutinize one's own country's actions constitute, I think, something crucial to the fundaments of democracy. Hence the sense of civic duty many here demonstrate about it.

Just my 5c ...

Yeah, I don't mind scrutiny. But, people want to blast him as if he committed a heinous crime unheard of in history.

I think it's impossible for Bush to know anything for sure. He don't make the inspections and gather the information. He relies on people who have made it their careers to do that. They report to him and he makes a decision.

A smart move might be to have briefings with an independent counsel assigned to scrutinize intelligence findings. And if elected President...

Joe

Bin Laden urges Muslims to fight U.S. occupation in Iraq. I've said before that common objectives attract forces. Why would Bin Laden urge Muslims to fight in Iraq if their is no connection and who is he talking to if he is not a leader of at least some of them?

"...continue the jihad to check the conspiracies that are hatched against the Islamic nation."

"The occupation of Iraq is the beginning of the full occupation of the other Gulf states. ... The Gulf is the key for control of the world in the point of view of the big powers because of the presence of the biggest deposits of oil." This claim alone leads to one of the biggest reasons why Bin Laden would be connected to the Iraq situation, he fears we want control of it all because of the oil. That is a good reason to send support to Iraq and back the holy war in any way he can.

I can't wait to hear if it is indeed Bin Laden nor can I wait to know everything he had to say on the videotape. Al-Jazeera's editor-in-chief seems to think it is real. I just want to know what else it would say.

The point you seem to have missed again, is that bin-Laden's calls for fighting in Iraq have all come since the US invasion, not before. You seem to have a strong desire for bin-Laden to be linked with Hussein. Unfortunatly, desiring for something to be true does not make it so. Out of curiousity, why do you want there to be a link?

Wherever Muslims are in trouble, it seems, Osama bin Laden will be there, slaying enemies, real or perceived.

"The war has just started. The Americans should wait for the answer."

Greetings, America. My Name is Osama Bin Laden
By John Miller
February 1999, Volume 131, Issue 2, Esquire

Notice: John Miller interviewed Osama Bin Laden in order to write this article for a February 1999 issue.

This may have very little to do with the thread except for Osama's concern for Iraq, but in all my searches over the past couple of days, I found this article. It has some interesting things to think about.

I don't want a link. I'm just supporting the fact that there is one and that there has been one for awhile. I think evidence could literally slap people in the face and they would refuse to see it. Osama Bin Laden will always back any conflict against the infidel.

But, to bin-Laden, Hussein was the infidel. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you yourself are grasping at straws to support a belief:

The available evidence seems to contradict your belief. A wise man admits his errors and moves on. Perhaps you should do so?

Yet, he's urging Muslims to keep fighting in Iraq. Your refusal to see what I have been handing you is just stubborn loyalty to previously held notions despite rapidly changing and challenging intelligence.

Michael, my "refusal to see what you have been handing me" is due to my familiarity with the subject matter. Perhaps if you were to let the rest of us in on this "rapidly changing intelligence" you keep talking about, we might be more inclined to agree with you. The problem lies in that the only people who have implied links between al-Quaed and Hussein are either:
-Affiliated with Chalabi and the INC, a group that has become well known for telling the Bush administration what it wishes to hear, or

-Members of the Intelligence Establishment closely affiliated with the Bush administration.

Unfortunately for those who so strongly desire a link to exist, every piece of information presented by these groups has been swiftly debunked.

Debunked by simply saying so. How familiar are you with the topic? Things you've read written by people who will tell you what you want to hear.

I addressed this earlier. Bin-Laden issued calls to arms after the US invaded Iraq. Before the invasion, he routinely called for the overthrow of the Hussein government. This was not a show of support for the Hussein adminsitration, or evidence of a link between the two. It is evidence of a continued call to attack the US.
I repeat, bin-Laden has frequently called for the ouster of Hussein. He is extremely unlikely to have worked directly with Hussein or his government.
In addition, Iraq has not been active in any way other than as a funding source for international terrorism since 1992. Hussein may not have even allowed access to military training facilities since 1999. Certainly one source of funding for Hussein was to allow access to these facilites, but ther has been no evidence of their use by al-Qaeda, whcih has its own facilities in Afghanistan, and has shown a distinct aversion to training its people anywhere else.
These are just a few reasons why your "evidence" for collusion between Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda is unsatisfactory. Your statements that you "believe" there to be a connection are not sufficient.

I rely on several international sources, including the BBC, Suddeutsche Zeitung, FAZ, Le Monde, Figaro, Jordan Times, al-Jazeera, Ha'aretz, Karachi Voice, Japan Times, World Policy Journal, Intelligence Journal, Foreign Affairs, CEIP, and The FLetcher Forum, to name a few. I doubt any of these publications are writing to an audience that desires that they "tell me what I wish to hear." You have resorted to being childish now. How sad. Good night.

Good night.

See here for the latest:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/

Joe

OK, I have to say you all win. There is no way for me to verify, especially when the very people who influenced my thinking in the first place are starting to back out on their own assumptions.

Besides, proving a link would have to be the hardest task in the world up there with flying the stealth bomber, finding Osama Bin Laden and stringing up Christmas lights.

But, the thread was fun while it lasted.

That was very graciously put and I, for one, appreciate it.


Onward.


Joe

yeah
It was gracious. I sure as Hell wouldn't want to get into a debate with Michael off Net though. He can wear one down.

I can't win 'em all.