THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Those here who have claimed that al Qaeda was not harbored in Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq, have thus far failed to explain why they think the Ansar al Islam camp located in northern Iraq did not harbor al Qaeda.

Or, if they grant that camp harbored al Qaeda, they have thus far failed to explain why they think those al Qaeda were less of a threat to Americans than were an equivalent number harbored in Afghanistan.

Or, if they grant that camp harbored al Qaeda who were a threat to Americans equal to an equivalent number of al Qaeda harbored in Afghanistan, they have thus far failed to explain why their existence in Iraq did not justify an invasion of Iraq to destroy them.

www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
(2.4;notes 53 and 54)

Quote:

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

No, it didn't work.

Later on August 20 [1998], Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20-30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan's army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin.46

The Clinton administration eventually launched a large-scale set of air strikes against Iraq, Operation Desert Fox, in December 1998. These military commitments became the context in which the Clinton administration had to consider opening another front of military engagement against a new terrorist threat based in Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary William Cohen told us Bin Ladin's training camps were primitive, built with "rope ladders"; General Shelton called them "jungle gym" camps. Neither thought them worthwhile targets for very expensive missiles. President Clinton and Berger also worried about the Economist's point-that attacks that missed Bin Ladin could enhance his stature and win him new recruits. After the United States launched air attacks against Iraq at the end of 1998 and against Serbia in 1999, in each case provoking worldwide criticism, Deputy National Security Advisor James Steinberg added the argument that attacks in Afghanistan offered "little benefit, lots of blowback against [a] bomb-happy U.S."59

U.S. intelligence estimates put the total number of fighters who underwent instruction in Bin Ladin-supported camps in Afghanistan from 1996 through 9/11 at 10,000 to 20,000.78

It is easily arguable that there are more terrorists now than before we invaded Iraq. Therefore, the mission =/ accomplished if the mission was to stop terrorism... Will it work in the end? I hope, but don't think, so.

Had the Bush administration said anything as concrete and understandable as the above, then the Iraq war might have been at least understandable. However they did not say anything like that, instead they made a bunch of stuff up and lied and they rushed to war without a plan and without allies that can acutally help us.

Subject: 17% Increase In Medicare Premiums

Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium increase - the biggest in history"?

That ad is a stroke of genius on Kerry's part and will surely gain him Many votes among the uninformed. I found it so amazing that I did some homework on the issue.

As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton, voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect during the Bush administration.

President Bush had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration.

Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people.

Don't be duped by his mendacity.

Please, e-mail, copy, in whatever way you can do this. Americans must know the deceitful mind of John Kerry. How he lies and plays his tricks.

WASHINGTON POST, October 13, 2004
Insurgent alliance fraying in Fallujah
Locals, fearing invasion, turn against foreign Arabs
By Karl Vick
Updated: 12:45 a.m. ET Oct. 13, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Local insurgents in the city of Fallujah are turning against the foreign fighters who have been their allies in the rebellion that has held the U.S. military at bay in parts of Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland, according to Fallujah residents, insurgent leaders and Iraqi and U.S. officials.

Relations are deteriorating as local fighters negotiate to avoid a U.S.-led military offensive against Fallujah, while foreign fighters press to attack Americans and their Iraqi supporters. The disputes have spilled over into harsh words and sporadic violence, with Fallujans killing at least five foreign Arabs in recent weeks, according to witnesses.

"If the Arabs will not leave willingly, we will make them leave by force," said Jamal Adnan, a taxi driver who left his house in Fallujah's Shurta neighborhood a month ago after the house next door was bombed by U.S. aircraft targeting foreign insurgents.

Located 35 miles west of Baghdad in Iraq's Sunni Triangle, Fallujah has been outside the control of Iraqi authorities and U.S. military forces since April, when a siege by U.S. Marines was lifted and Iraqi security forces were given responsibility for the city's security. Local and foreign insurgents gradually gained control, and Iraqi and U.S. officials say Fallujah has become a principal source of instability in the country.

U.S. and Iraqi authorities together have insisted that if Fallujah is to avoid an all-out assault aimed at regaining control of the city, foreign fighters must be ejected. Several local leaders of the insurgency say they, too, want to expel the foreigners, whom they scorn as terrorists. They heap particular contempt on Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian whose Monotheism and Jihad group has asserted responsibility for many of the deadliest attacks across Iraq, including videotaped beheadings.

"He is mentally deranged, has distorted the image of the resistance and defamed it. I believe his end is near," Abu Abdalla Dulaimy, military commander of the First Army of Mohammad, said recently.

One of the foreign guerrillas killed by local fighters was Abu Abdallah Suri, a Syrian and a prominent member of Zarqawi's group, whose body was discovered Sunday. Suri was shot in the head and chest while being chased by a carload of tribesmen, according to a security guard who said he witnessed the killing.

Denied shelter
Residents say foreign fighters recently have taken to gathering in Fallujah's grimy commercial district after being denied shelter in residential neighborhoods because their presence so often attracts U.S. warplanes. The airstrikes and the turmoil in the streets have spurred perhaps half of the city's 300,000 residents to flee, residents and officials said.
...

Do you really think anything or anybody 'harbored' in Iraq without the knowledge and consent of Saddam?

They neither lied nor made stuff up.

'John Abizaid was the only one who really had his head in the postwar game,' said Garner. 'The Bush administration did not. Condi Rice did not. Doug Feith didn't. You could go brief them, but you never saw any initiative come of them. You just kind of got a north and south nod. And so it ends with so many tragic things.'

The question is not whether al Qaeda harbored in Iraq prior to the invasion; the question is whether Saddam harbored al Qaeda prior to the invasion.

In this restricted National Security Council meeting, the President said it was a time for self-defense. The United States would punish not just the perpetrators of the attacks, but also those who harbored them. ...34

Later on August 20 [1998], Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20-30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan's army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin.46

Members of the Small Group found themselves unpersuaded of the merits of rolling attacks. Defense Secretary William Cohen told us Bin Ladin's training camps were primitive, built with "rope ladders"; General Shelton called them "jungle gym" camps. Neither thought them worthwhile targets for very expensive missiles. President Clinton and Berger also worried about the Economist's point-that attacks that missed Bin Ladin could enhance his stature and win him new recruits. After the United States launched air attacks against Iraq at the end of 1998 and against Serbia in 1999, in each case provoking worldwide criticism, Deputy National Security Advisor James Steinberg added the argument that attacks in Afghanistan offered "little benefit, lots of blowback against [a] bomb-happy U.S."59

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

What is highly dubious is the claim that Ansar al-Islam had ties to Saddam.

Quote:

International Crisis Group Middle East Project Director Joost Hiltermann said:
"Profound ideological differences and a history of atrocities committed by the regime against the Kurds make a strong connection between Saddam Hussein and Ansar al-Islam extremely unlikely. If there is support from Baghdad, it is likely to be in the form of financial assistance, motivated by a desire to keep a finger in the pot, stir up trouble among the Kurds and keep the PUK [Patriotic Union of Kurdistan] on the defensive, rather than a strategic alliance with Ansar's cause."

Even the PUK ... has denied any ties between Ansar and Baghdad.

Mullah Krekar has denied links to al Qaeda let alone Saddam.

[According to [Krekar], however, the US government itself has ties to Ansar al-Islam. The CIA and the US Army had meetings with Mullah Krekar at the end of 2000 seeking collaboration with his organization he told the London based Arabic paper Al-Hayat.

By your logic, Icann, the terrorists who trained here for the 9/11 attacks would have been justification for our gov't to have been attacked and overthrown by another country.

revel wrote:

Had the Bush administration said anything as concrete and understandable as the above, then the Iraq war might have been at least understandable. However they did not say anything like that, instead they made a bunch of stuff up and lied and they rushed to war without a plan and without allies that can acutally help us.

I think it's true that after Secretary Powell's speech to the UN February 2003 detailing and justifying several reasons for invading Iraq, the Bush administration did a lousey job reiterating Powell's well articulated remarks. Bush, himself, failed repeatedly to adequately rebut the news media's repeated claim that the alleged existence of WMD in Iraq was the only sufficient reason for invading Iraq. While it may have been Bush's only reason--I don't know since I cannot read minds--it was not the only sufficient reason. Another sufficient reason was the harboring of al Qaeda in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan with the very significant probability that the harboring in Iraq would grow to equal or even exceed that in Afghanistan unless we invaded Iraq as well and stopped the growth of al Qaeda there too.