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

Let's see, how long was it between the first attack on the WTC and Sept. 11th? Can we expect to wait that long before the next one to shout "triumph?" How many Americans have been killed by terrorist not within the actual borders of the U.S.? Let's get some perspective here.

Prior to 2001 the complex had sustained a major terrorist attack. On February 26, 1993, a large bomb planted by terrorists exploded in the underground garage of Two World Trade Center, damaging the base of the building (subsequently repaired), killing 6 people, and injuring some 1,000. The attack that occurred on September 11, 2001, was much more destructive. Hijackers deliberately flew two commercial airliners into the towers, the first striking the north tower at 8:46 AM (local time) and the second hitting the south tower at 9:03. Badly damaged and engulfed in flames, the weakened south tower collapsed at 9:59; the north tower fell about a half hour later. Debris from the towers also destroyed or damaged other buildings in and around the complex. Some 2,800 people were killed.

The cause was the preservation and integrity of the United States and the emancipation of people of colour. It was a war for freedom, dignity and the rule of law. A war that had to be fought.

Many Al Qaeda were fleeing for the temporary sanctuary of Iraq? Exactly how many is that? How about the other countries we suspect they escaped to?

The Civil War? An inevitable war and after it was over, how long did it take before Afro-Americans could be said to have achieved the good life along with equality? Has that even happened yet?

So many morons, so little time.

I wonder why C.I. doesn't make the connection that WMD is a valid point in the War against Terrorism, especially when they are in the hands of terrorists?

I'll point out too that despite the media spin, the causus beli re Iraq was not Iraq's possession of WMD, but Iraqs defiance of demands Iraq clearly and unambiguously document and prove divestiture of known proscribed assets and capabilities.....

And, at the time we invaded Iraq, Bush believed what (almost) everybody else did, including those who voted not to go to war with Iraq, that Saddam had WMD. I again will refer you to the William Raspberry column: "We Didn't Dare Wait". It is posted elsewhere here on A2K or you can google Raspberry and get it. It explains it quite clearly.

If we had the luxury of making all decisions based on hindsight, you would have a valid argument C.I. But, as we all do, the President has to make decisions based on the information available to him at the time the decision is made.

The more he read, the more uneasy he became. In early February 2003 Colin Powell was putting the finishing touches on his speech to the United Nations spelling out the case for war in Iraq. Across the Potomac River, a Pentagon intelligence analyst going over the facts in the speech was alarmed at how shaky that case was. Powell's presentation relied heavily on the claims of one especially dubious Iraqi defector, dubbed "Curve Ball" inside the intel community. A self-proclaimed chemical engineer who was the brother of a top aide to Iraqi National Congress chief Ahmad Chalabi, Curve Ball had told the German intelligence service that Iraq had a fleet of seven mobile labs used to manufacture deadly biological weapons. But nobody inside the U.S. government had ever actually spoken to the informant?-except the Pentagon analyst, who concluded the man was an alcoholic and utterly useless as a source. He recalled that Curve Ball had shown up for their only meeting nursing a "terrible hangover."

After reading Powell's speech, the analyst decided he had to speak up, according to a devastating report from the Senate intelligence committee, released last week, on intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq war. He wrote an urgent e-mail to a top CIA official warning that there were even questions about whether Curve Ball "was who he said he was." Could Powell really rely on such an informant as the "backbone" for the U.S. government's claims that Iraq had a continuing biological-weapons program? The CIA official quickly responded: "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say," he wrote. "The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about."

The saga of Curve Ball is just one of many wince-inducing moments to be found in the 500-page Senate report, which lays out how the U.S. intelligence community utterly failed to accurately assess the state of Saddam Hussein's programs for weapons of mass destruction?-and how White House and Pentagon officials, intent on taking the country to war, unquestioningly embraced the flawed conclusions. In startling detail, the bipartisan report concludes that the CIA and other agencies consistently "overstated" the evidence that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, and was actively reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. Hampered by a "group think" dynamic that caused them to view all Iraqi actions in the harshest possible light, the committee found, U.S. intelligence officials repeatedly embellished fragmentary and ambiguous pieces of evidence, making the danger posed by Iraq appear far more urgent than it actually was.

When U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq in the fall of 2002 and reported that they couldn't find any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, for instance, the CIA dismissed the inspectors as gullible neophytes who were being tricked by deceitful Iraqi handlers. Similarly, when several Iraqi officials and scientists stepped forward to claim that Saddam had actually destroyed his WMD stockpiles and discontinued his programs (a claim that appears increasingly likely to have been the truth), they were branded as liars?-while dubious sources like Curve Ball, whose stories were in step with the administration, were embraced.

Terrorism and terrorist are emotive and variable terms, depending entirely on your viewpoint. For instance, consider that there are more arabs terrified of the USA than Americans terrified of the arabs.

Prior to 2001 the complex had sustained a major terrorist attack. On February 26, 1993, a large bomb planted by terrorists exploded in the underground garage of Two World Trade Center, damaging the base of the building (subsequently repaired), killing 6 people, and injuring some 1,000. The attack that occurred on September 11, 2001, was much more destructive. Hijackers deliberately flew two commercial airliners into the towers, the first striking the north tower at 8:46 AM (local time) and the second hitting the south tower at 9:03. Badly damaged and engulfed in flames, the weakened south tower collapsed at 9:59; the north tower fell about a half hour later. Debris from the towers also destroyed or damaged other buildings in and around the complex. Some 2,800 people were killed.

Since when was the US the executive arm of the United Nations? You can't have this argument both ways.

Prior to 2001 the complex had sustained a major terrorist attack. On February 26, 1993, a large bomb planted by terrorists exploded in the underground garage of Two World Trade Center, damaging the base of the building (subsequently repaired), killing 6 people, and injuring some 1,000. The attack that occurred on September 11, 2001, was much more destructive. Hijackers deliberately flew two commercial airliners into the towers, the first striking the north tower at 8:46 AM (local time) and the second hitting the south tower at 9:03. Badly damaged and engulfed in flames, the weakened south tower collapsed at 9:59; the north tower fell about a half hour later. Debris from the towers also destroyed or damaged other buildings in and around the complex. Some 2,800 people were killed.