InfraBlue wrote:The prior administration’s missile attacks on Iraq prior to the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq were not intended to disrupt al Qaeda in Iraq. Those missile attacks dubbed Operation Desert Fox were intended to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contributed to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. In that capacity--their explicitly stated goals of degrading Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction; diminishing Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war against his neighbors; and demonstrating to Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international obligations--they were wildly successful. They were the point of reference by which David Kay stated that since ODF, there were no WMD in Iraq.
All of that are true facts. It's also a true FACT that: the prior administration’s missile attacks on Iraq prior to the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq failed to disrupt al Qaeda in Iraq. That truth is independent of the past administrations intentions and stands on its own.
InfraBlue wrote:Your conclusion, ican, is based on the non-sequitur that the government in Iraq harbored al Qaeda there. That "al Qaeda" was harbored in Iraq is one thing, that the government there harbored them is another, unproven assumption. "Al Qaeda" (it is actually Ansar al-Islam to whom you are referring) were harbored, as I've pointed out to you earlier in this thread, in Northern Iraq, beyond the reach of the government in Iraq. Their activities were sheltered and harbored by both Operation Provide Comfort and subsequently by Operation Northern Watch which enforced no-fly zones in this area of Iraq.
You call what I provided an
unproven assumption that the government of Iraq knowingly and willingly harbored al Qaeda. I call it a conclusion based on evidence. What you have previously pointed out to me is not even evidence much less proof. It is merely your opinion--or the opinion of others you adhere to.
InfraBlue wrote:There are allegations by the creator of Ansar himself that the US government had ties to "al Qaeda" there in Northern Iraq.
And you believe him!
Read again, this time carefully, the
evidence I have provided. Then deal with the substance of that evidence and not illogical diversions from that substance. [emphasis provided by me]
HERE IS
EVIDENCE THAT ALTHOUGH IRAQ DID NOT HAVE A "COLLABORATIVE OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP" WITH AL QAEDA, IRAQ DID HARBOR AL QAEDA, AND DID INTEND TO RESUME DEVELOPMENT OF WMD WHEN SANCTIONS WERE LIFTED.
Colin Powell in his speech to UN, 2/5/2003 wrote:
www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300pf.htm
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.
…
Now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates.
This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large, to come and go.
9-11 Commission, 8/21/2004 wrote:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
[Chapt. 2.4]
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
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
[Chapt. 2.5]
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin.
Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76
[Chapt. 10.2]
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. Secretary Powell said the United States had to make it clear to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Arab states that the time to act was now. He said we would need to build a coalition. The President noted that the attacks provided a great opportunity to engage Russia and China. Secretary Rumsfeld urged the President and the principals to think broadly about who might have harbored the attackers, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, and Iran. He wondered aloud how much evidence the United States would need in order to deal with these countries, pointing out that major strikes could take up to 60 days to assemble.34
[Chapt. 10.3]
Having issued directives to guide his administration's preparations for war, on Thursday, September 20, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress. "Tonight," he said, "we are a country awakened to danger."80 The President blamed al Qaeda for 9/11 and the 1998 embassy bombings and, for the first time, declared that al Qaeda was "responsible for bombing the USS Cole."81 He reiterated the ultimatum that had already been conveyed privately. "The Taliban must act, and act immediately," he said. "They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate."82 The President added that America's quarrel was not with Islam: "The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends.
Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them." Other regimes faced hard choices, he pointed out: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."83
Charles Duelfer in his report, 9/30/2004 wrote:
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
[Regime Strategic Intent; Key Findings]
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
MY BASIC ARGUMENT
FACT: Al Qaeda declared war on Americans in 1996, 1998, and 2004, and have murdered thousands of Americans.
FACT: Al Qaeda were harbored in Afghanistan prior to US invasion of Afghanistan.
FACT: Al Qaeda were harbored in Iraq prior to US invasion of Iraq.
FACT: The prior administration’s missile attacks on al Qaeda in Afghanistan prior to the Bush administration’s invasion of Afganistan failed to disrupt al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
FACT: The prior administration’s missile attacks on Iraq prior to the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq failed to disrupt al Qaeda in Iraq.
FACT: Invasion of Afghanistan removed the Taliban and many al Qaeda from Afghanistan.
FACT: Invasion of Iraq removed the Saddams and many al Qaeda from Iraq.
MY CONCLUSION
The Bush administration’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were equally justified by virtue of their common objective to remove the harboring governments and the harbored al Qaeda from Afghanistan and Iraq.
I thought the Republicans won because they received the most votes. :wink:
