One piece of persuasive evidence is that Saddam after hearing Powell's 2/5/2003 speech did not respond with something--something, anything--in an attempt to dissuade the US invasion. Perhaps something like: Fool! Zarkawi is not a leader of those al Qaeda camps. I can't extradite from those camps what ain't in those camps. Get off my back!
In an 80-minute presentation, Powell claimed that Saddam has had a relationship with al-Qaeda dating back to the mid-1990s and that Osama bin Laden has an operative in Iraq who sits atop a "sinister nexus" of terror. He didn't provide any evidence of the relationship, however.
Saddam, in an interview broadcast Tuesday in London, forcefully denied that his government has weapons of mass destruction or a relationship with al-Qaeda.
ican711nm wrote:Propaganda, both false and true, is often repeated endlessly.
Quote:...Saddam, in an interview broadcast Tuesday in London, forcefully denied that his government has weapons of mass destruction or a relationship with al-Qaeda.
So, reacting to Powell's speech, "Saddam ... forcefully denied that his government has ... a relationship with al-Qaeda."
Oops, there goes your persuasive evidence.... Try harder, ican.
Iraqi officials dismissed Powell's case as a collection of "stunts" and "special effects" that relied on "unknown sources" and was aimed at undermining the work of the inspectors.
"What we heard today was for the general public and mainly the uninformed, in order to influence their opinion and to commit aggression on Iraq," said Lt. Gen. Amir al-Saadi, an adviser to Saddam. Al-Saadi, who spoke in Baghdad, was personally vilified in Powell's speech for deceiving inspectors.
Addressing the Security Council after all 15 members spoke, Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri dismissed Powell's charges that his country is hiding banned weapons and has links to terrorists.
Saddam, in an interview broadcast Tuesday in London, forcefully denied that his government has weapons of mass destruction or a relationship with al-Qaeda.
hiding banned weapons and has links to terrorists
1. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists. [Reference A]
2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]
3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]
4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier. [References A, B, C, D]
5. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan. [Reference A]
6. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq. [References A, B, D, E]
7. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistan people’s own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]
8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraq people’s own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]
9. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.
References:
A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
NEW LINK:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm
C. “The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq”
www.britannica.com
D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
“10” Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers
E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
In none of these denials is there a specific denial that Zarqawi was a leader of the al Qaeda in Iraq. Why not?
ican711nm wrote:In none of these denials is there a specific denial that Zarqawi was a leader of the al Qaeda in Iraq. Why not?
Because Powell didn't claim that Zarqawi was the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.
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.
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.
I'm a little disappointed that your only reference re Zarqawi remains Powell's speech, ican.
Ansar al-Islam has been accused by the United States of providing a safe haven to al-Qaeda associates, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
... Nevertheless, during the last 50 pages or so you haven't been able of coming up with any reference of an US government official saying something like "Zarqawi was the leader of those camps in northern Iraq, and that's why we have to/had to invade Iraq".
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.
Btw: sarcasm is a sad resort for lack of good references.
The claims were rejected by [Mullah] Krekar, and a presentation by Colin Powell to the UN on February 5, 2003 was met with widespread scepticism
Good night, ican!
Talabani rules out signing Saddam death warrant
Mon Apr 18, 2005
LONDON (Reuters) - Iraq's new President Jalal Talabani said he would refuse to sign Saddam Hussein's death warrant if the former dictator was convicted of war crimes.
In an interview on Monday with the British Broadcasting Corp, Talabani said he opposed capital punishment on principle.
"Personally, no, I won't sign," he said in an online BBC report of the interview.
"But you know, the presidency of Iraq are three people. These three must decide. So I can be absent. I can go on holiday and let the two others (the vice-presidents) decide."
Talabani, a Kurd, was sworn in this month as Iraq's first democratically elected president in more than 50 years. The vice-presidents are Shi'ite Adel Abdul Mahdi and Sunni Arab tribal elder Ghazi Yawar.
Saddam and 11 aides face trial for war crimes at a special tribunal in Iraq. Trials are not expected to start until later this year at the earliest and the investigation into alleged crimes has been hampered by widespread insecurity.
Talabani said all other members of the new leadership, and the vast majority of Iraqis, favoured a swift execution for the ousted dictator.
"So I think I will be alone in this field, calling for a reprieve," he said.
Talabani, 71, may not be in office to deal with a reprieve. His administration will oversee the drafting of a new constitution by mid-August and hold elections in December. Any trial of Saddam is unlikely to conclude this year.
Iraqi Alliance Seeks to Oust Top Officials Of Hussein Era
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, April 18, 2005; Page A01
BAGHDAD, April 17 -- The Shiite Muslim bloc leading the new Iraqi government will demand the removal of all top officials left over from the era of former president Saddam Hussein, a top official said. The move would be part of a purge that U.S. officials fear could oust thousands of the most capable Iraqis from military and intelligence forces the United States has spent more than $5 billion rebuilding.
...
"I cannot see that the Americans would allow the total dissolution of a system which they helped and which they initiated," he said. "They will be forced into a lot of compromises."
revel wrote:Iraqi Alliance Seeks to Oust Top Officials Of Hussein Era
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, April 18, 2005; Page A01
BAGHDAD, April 17 -- The Shiite Muslim bloc leading the new Iraqi government will demand the removal of all top officials left over from the era of former president Saddam Hussein, a top official said. The move would be part of a purge that U.S. officials fear could oust thousands of the most capable Iraqis from military and intelligence forces the United States has spent more than $5 billion rebuilding.
...
"I cannot see that the Americans would allow the total dissolution of a system which they helped and which they initiated," he said. "They will be forced into a lot of compromises."
This article highlights the consequences of the major Bush&Adm blunder in Iraq. Building military and intelligence forces out of Baathists previously responsible for perpetrating or assisting genocide in Iraq, sets up the Iraqi people for a re-establishment of that same genocide once the US leaves Iraq. It also sets up the re-establishment of al Qaeda training bases in Iraq when the US leaves.
That $5 billion US investment was terribly shortsighted. I agree with the Shiite Muslim bloc. Different work should be provided the former genocidal Baathist perpetrators and accomplices than military or intelligence service. How about work in reconstruction and/or maintenance of facilities? There is more than enough opportunity to make a living in that in Iraq.
comment | Posted April 14, 2005
What I Didn't See in Iraq
by Jim McGovern
Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
Take Action Now!
QUOT-T rust me when I tell you things are so much better in Iraq," said one US military official to me on my recent visit to that war-ravaged country. I didn't know whether to scream or pull the remaining two strands of hair out of my head. I was in Iraq as part of a delegation of eight members of Congress, led by House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Everything we have been told about Iraq by the Bush Administration has either been an outright lie or overwhelmingly false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; we have not been greeted as liberators; and the cost in terms of blood and treasure has outpaced even their worst-case scenarios. Trust is something I cannot give to this Administration.
If things in Iraq are so much better, why are we not decreasing the number of US forces there? Why is the insurgency showing no signs of waning? Why are we being told that in a few months the Administration will again ask Congress for billions of dollars more to fight the war? Why, according to the World Food Program, is hunger among the Iraqi people getting worse? It's time for some candor, but candor is hard to come by in Iraq.
We were in Iraq for one day--for security reasons, it is US policy that Congressional delegations are not allowed to spend the night. We spent most of our time in the heavily fortified Green Zone, which serves as coalition headquarters. It's the most heavily guarded encampment I've ever seen--and it still gets attacked. I even had armed guards accompany me to the bathroom. The briefings we received from US military and diplomatic officials were, to say the least, unsatisfying. The Nixonian approach that our military and diplomatic leaders have adopted in dealing with visiting members of Congress is aimed more at saving face than at engaging in an honest dialogue. At first, our briefers wanted to get away with slick slide presentations, but we insisted on asking real questions and attempting to get real answers.
During one such briefing, Lieut. Gen. David Petraeus, tasked with overseeing training of Iraqi security forces, informed us that 147,000 Iraqis had been trained. That sounded good to me. Perhaps we could start reducing the number of American forces, I suggested. But upon further questioning, General Petraeus conceded that less than one-fourth of the 147,000 were actually "combat capable." Why didn't he say that to begin with? I asked--respectfully--our military and diplomatic officials what the gap was between the Iraqis we have trained and the number we needed to train in order to draw down the number of US troops. I could not get a straight answer.
During the morning of our visit, US military officials crowed about a recent operation in which Iraqi security forces had killed eighty-five insurgents. By the afternoon, when more reports came in, it was unclear how many insurgents had actually been killed and whether the Iraqi security forces had exaggerated their own actions.
I asked both General Petraeus and our embassy about US plans to build military bases in Iraq, which in my view would indicate a prolonged US presence. I was told--emphatically--that there are no plans to construct military bases. Yet Congress recently passed a huge supplemental wartime appropriations bill that includes, at the request of the Bush Administration, $500 million for military base construction. In Iraq.
Shortly before we traveled to Iraq we visited Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who lamented the mistakes the United States has made post-invasion, including the total dissolution of all the Iraqi security forces. He said, "The army you disbanded is now the army you're fighting." But I couldn't get a single US official to acknowledge any mistakes. The standard line remains, "We're moving in the right direction."
It's hard to believe that after a two-year occupation the average Iraqi isn't getting tired of the overwhelming US presence. We met with several Iraqi women leaders, including members of the National Assembly, who told us that there was more electricity available in Iraq before the invasion than afterward. It's also certain that the insurgency uses our presence as an organizing tool to recruit members and weapons. While we can all be encouraged by the turnout in the recent Iraqi elections, it is impossible for the Iraqi people to truly determine their own fate in a climate where there is no security.
And while US officials point to a declining number of coalition casualties, there is still an unacceptably high level of violence in Iraq. One military leader told us they can tell that things are changing for the better because when US helicopters fly over certain areas of Iraq, Iraqis wave. Well, I took a helicopter ride (it's too dangerous to drive) from the Baghdad airport to the Green Zone wearing an armored vest and sandwiched between two heavily armed American soldiers who were pointing their guns down at the ground. I suggested to the military leader that perhaps he was confusing a wave with a plea not to shoot.
Our young men and women in uniform are performing their difficult duties extraordinarily well. Indeed, the only honest and direct responses I got from any American in Iraq were from the soldiers. They told me they had been instructed by their superiors not to share any complaints with visitors.
What worries me almost as much as our misguided policy in Iraq is that so many of my colleagues and so many citizens have become resigned to the fact that the war will go on. Congress is not being inundated with letters and phone calls and faxes and e-mails and street protests demanding an end to our presence in Iraq. President Bush's re-election seems to have taken much of the energy out of the antiwar movement. My recent visit to Iraq only strengthened my belief that this war is wrong. And only renewed, passionate dissent by the American people can end it.
...
About/Contact | Media Kit | Privacy Policy Copyright © 2005 The Nation
Source