1
   

Why Do We Let bush Get Away With This Crap?

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:05 pm
Karzak wrote:
nimh wrote:

Ooh kay ... so, the below (from Bush's speech to the nation at the advent of the war, when he announced that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours left to leave Iraq) does not strike you as claiming an imminent threat?

LOL, it is the US making an imminent threat to saddam.

You're not answering the question. When President Bush warned us about how "The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country" - et cetera, see my quotes above - he was NOT, in your opinion, sketching an "imminent danger"?

Karzak wrote:
nimh wrote:

On an aside, also 'cute' to remember is this claim by Bush, in that speech: "[The Iraqi regime] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."

Which is true.

Not according to the 9/11 Commission. Or the Senate report. "Contacts", perhaps, but no "collaborative relationship" - no "training" of al Qaeda operatives.

Or perhaps you can show us the parts from the 9/11 Commission or Senate reports where it is established that Saddam's regime "trained" al Qaeda operatives? I mean, I know the Weekly Standard claimed to establish it did, based on unconfirmed raw intelligence, but now that we've had the full review and evaluation of said intelligence, what did these two commissions conclude on Iraq "training" al Qaeda operatives?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:11 pm
Did Hussein make any active efforts to rid Iraq of al Qaeda training camps? Not that it would signify any direct support of al Qaeda, but I would be interested to know.

He also harbored many known terrorists from other organizations than al Qaeda and supported many of the anti-Israeli terror groups. This is known and documented.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:14 pm
Karzak wrote:
The point is that the vast majority of politicians in the US and abroad believed saddam had stockpiles of chemical weapons, and that they posed a threat.


Am not going to go thru this whole thing again, so lets just post two quotes and leave it at that:

Joschka Fischer, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Germany, turning to Donald Rumsfeld at an international summit and switching to English in mid-sentence to tell him:

Quote:
in this democracy my generation has learnt... ( in English ) You have to make the case, and to make the case in a democracy, you have to be convinced yourself, and excuse me, I am not convinced. This is my problem and I cannot go to the public and say, "well, let's go to war because there are reasons" [when] I don't believe in that.

CBC on Canadian PM Chretien's position:

Quote:
Although by February 2003 United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the United States continued to push for an end to Saddam Hussein's regime and lobbied other nations to join in that effort. Jean Chrétien declined to join, saying Canada would not participate in a war against Iraq without UN approval.

[..] Chrétien gave one of his characteristic responses accompanied by one of his quintessential shrugs when asked what he meant by wanting to have "clear evidence" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"A proof is a proof. What kind of proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven," Chrétien told reporters.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:15 pm
Pff, you're wasting your time if you are asking him to back up his statements, Nimh....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:17 pm
nimh wrote:

You're not answering the question. When President Bush warned us about how "The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country" - he was NOT, in your opinion, sketching an "imminent danger"?


He was, as kerry and edwards and kennedy and so many others were doing, stating a real future danger, not imminent in the sense that the attack was certain to occur any second, but rather a danger that would result in likely attack sooner or later if left unchecked.

I think you can see bush's stance in this quote of his:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

nimh wrote:

Not according to the 9/11 Commission. Or the Senate report. "Contacts", perhaps, but no "collaborative relationship" - no "training" of al Qaeda operatives.


According to the CIA, al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998.

There are many such links between saddam and al qaeda. It's true that there isn't a al Qaeda office in the iraqi intellegence office in bagdad, but there was clear collaboration.

As far as training:

Iraqi defectors had been saying for years that Saddam's regime trained "non-Iraqi Arab terrorists" at a camp in Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. U.N. inspectors had confirmed the camp's existence, including the presence of a Boeing 707. Defectors say the plane was used to train hijackers; the Iraqi regime said it was used in counterterrorism training. Sabah Khodada, a captain in the Iraqi Army, worked at Salman Pak. In October 2001, he told PBS's "Frontline" about what went on there. "Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism. . . . All this training is directly toward attacking American targets, and American interests."
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:18 pm
McGentrix wrote:
He also harbored many known terrorists from other organizations than al Qaeda and supported many of the anti-Israeli terror groups. This is known and documented.

Yep, pretty much. We know Saddam harbored at least one anti-Israel terrorist and supported others.

It is the claim that he aided and trained Al Qaeda terrorists thats contested - and remains disproven, despite Karzak's (or Cheney's, for that matter) bold claims about it.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:25 pm
nimh wrote:

It is the claim that he aided and trained Al Qaeda terrorists thats contested - and remains disproven, despite Karzak's (or Cheney's, for that matter) bold claims about it.


Well, some things can never be proven, like elvis's death
0 Replies
 
Redheat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:28 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Did Hussein make any active efforts to rid Iraq of al Qaeda training camps? Not that it would signify any direct support of al Qaeda, but I would be interested to know.

He also harbored many known terrorists from other organizations than al Qaeda and supported many of the anti-Israeli terror groups. This is known and documented.


Really do you people read anything but Newsmax? The training camps were in the NORTH. Now who controlled the North? Here's a hint IT WASN'T SADDAM. Actually the training camps were in KURDISH territories. Here's another little tidbit Kurdistan still isn't a DEMOCRACY.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:30 pm
Redheat wrote:

Really do you people read anything but Newsmax? The training camps were in the NORTH. Now who controlled the North? Here's a hint IT WASN'T SADDAM.


LOL, you think saddam had no control in his own borders? I find that very unlikely.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:35 pm
Karzak wrote:
nimh wrote:

Not according to the 9/11 Commission. Or the Senate report. "Contacts", perhaps, but no "collaborative relationship" - no "training" of al Qaeda operatives.

According to the CIA, al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998.

"Meeting" is not "training" or "aiding".

Karzak wrote:
More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998.

I think the damning conclusions of the Senate report this month about the unsubstantiated and flawed allegations that have characterised the administration's case on this issue should give anyone pause before once again quoting an anonymous "administration official" as "evidence".

Karzak wrote:
There are many such links between saddam and al qaeda. It's true that there isn't a al Qaeda office in the iraqi intellegence office in bagdad, but there was clear collaboration.

Not according to the 9/11 Commission and the Senate report there wasn't. No "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda, said the 9/11 Commission. The C.I.A's assessment that "there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an Al Qaeda attack was responsible and objective", said the Senate report. The latter also unearthed "five classified intelligence summaries prepared within the CIA and then distributed outside the agency after 9/11 [that] note that if there was indeed a Saddam/al-Qaida connection, it was a tenuous one."

Karzak wrote:
As far as training:

Iraqi defectors had been saying for years that Saddam's regime trained "non-Iraqi Arab terrorists" at a camp in Salman Pak

The various snippets of purported evidence on Salman Pak were put forward with relish by the Weekly Standard c.s.. But they remained contended. Now, the 9/11 Commission and the Senate report both reviewed all the intelligence, including the Salman Pak stuff, and reached their conclusions. And they concluded that there was no collaborative relationship. Or do you have more specifics on what they wrote about the alleged goings-on at Salman Pak?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:37 pm
Karzak wrote:

LOL, you think saddam had no control in his own borders? I find that very unlikely.


You seem unaware of the autonomous Kurd enclave.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:38 pm
In answer to McGentrix' question:

McGentrix wrote:
Did Hussein make any active efforts to rid Iraq of al Qaeda training camps? Not that it would signify any direct support of al Qaeda, but I would be interested to know.

This:

"The Senate report also cited other information available to the C.I.A. that suggested that Iraq would have been wary of any dealings with Al Qaeda, noting that the agency was aware that the Iraqi government had a pattern of arresting and executing Islamic extremists, and that the Iraqi government had sought "to prevent Iraq youth from joining Al Qaeda."

(from article quoted more extensively here)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:45 pm
Karzak wrote:
nimh wrote:
It is the claim that he aided and trained Al Qaeda terrorists thats contested - and remains disproven, despite Karzak's (or Cheney's, for that matter) bold claims about it.

Well, some things can never be proven, like elvis's death

Yeah, better not to go to war on such stuff then, eh?

Karzak wrote:
Redheat wrote:
Really do you people read anything but Newsmax? The training camps were in the NORTH. Now who controlled the North? Here's a hint IT WASN'T SADDAM.

LOL, you think saddam had no control in his own borders? I find that very unlikely.

<grins>

OK, you just fell into a hole, Karzak. NO, of course Saddam did not have "control in his own borders". As you should well know, throughout the nineties the Kurds in the north lived in an autonomous territorium of their own, ruled by their own government, safeguarded by the no-fly zones.

The notorious Ansar-al-Islam group, which has been alleged to train al-Qaeda groups, operated from the south/east of that Kurdish autonomous zone, out of reach from Saddam's men. (See this thread).

(But, for clarity's sake, the Ansar-al-Islam camps and the purported Salman Pak camp are different things I believe, different locations.)
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 02:08 pm
nimh wrote:

Yeah, better not to go to war on such stuff then, eh?


Good thing we didn't.

nimh wrote:

The notorious Ansar-al-Islam group, which has been alleged to train al-Qaeda groups, operated from the south/east of that Kurdish autonomous zone, out of reach from Saddam's men.


General Richard Meyers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 24 that "We do know that Iraqi intelligence service had people involved back and forth [with Ansar-al-Islam]"

Saddam couldn't go gas the kurds again, but he certainly had influence, it is disingenuous to claim saddam had no knowledge or influence within his own borders.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 02:09 pm
It's also disingenuous to create straw men. Nobody claimed Saddam "had no knowledge or influence within his own borders".
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 02:12 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
It's also disingenuous to create straw men. Nobody claimed Saddam "had no knowledge or influence within his own borders".


Well the, exactly how much knowledge of and influence with Ansar-al-Islam did saddam have?
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 02:14 pm
Stop being an ass, Karzak.

People, let it die. He's just not going to face reality, no matter how much truth you rub in his face. Just ignore him and (God willing) he'll go away.

He's starting to sound like a conservative version of the Iraq PR guy... "There are no American troops in Baghdad... the infidels are falling like flies..."
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 02:15 pm
JaO, if you have nothing add, then add nothing.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 02:17 pm
Karzak wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
It's also disingenuous to create straw men. Nobody claimed Saddam "had no knowledge or influence within his own borders".


Well the, exactly how much knowledge of and influence with Ansar-al-Islam did saddam have?


Your question is a deflection from your straw man. I made no claim about Saddam's influence with Ansar-al-Islam. I merely addressed your mental flatulence with the straw man.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 02:19 pm
JustanObserver wrote:
Stop being an ass, Karzak.


LOL, you mean stop being a conservative so we can all just get along and post weak rants and bush bash's with little substance togather while holding hands and singing kum ba yah?

No thanks.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 07:46:38