| Author | Message | ||
     Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5733 Registered: 4-1998  |
There's so much going on that we really won't have a handle on for years. To ask for "alternatives", well that would have been great if it were asked before we began the invasion. In hindsight, I think Iraq could have been contained and war avoided. Certainly Hans Blix has been exonerated. Iraq was the scapegoat to feed appetite for revenge for 9-11, which is why Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld kept linking them together in appearances, speeches and interviews. I'm sure there are many, many more al qaida agents operating in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria and Iran than there ever were in secular Iraq. But I see this isn't a topic for real discussion, but rather some kind of odd Bush campaign advertisement, as if the problem will go away in 4, 8 or 16 years. | ||
| strawberry Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1446 Registered: 10-2001 |
Nohero, We're sick and tired of Bush's integrity being attacked here on MOL and here in Maplefart. The man has been our nation's leader through some of the tougest events in America's recent history. He's made some mistakes, but overall he's been very effective in preventing terror attacks here in the U.S and doing his part to improve a brutalized economy. You don't have to vote for him, but a little honestly when discussing his policy making from those posters like you who do have a clue would be nice once in a while. "That moment has directly affected my foreign policy. See, it changed the nature of the presidency. It changed the security arrangements of the United States of America. I vowed to the American people I would never forget the lessons of September the 11th, 2001." --President George W. Bush | ||
| Ukealalio Citizen Username: Ukealalio Post Number: 200 Registered: 6-2003 |
Not attacking or criticizing anyone in particular but I have noticed that anyone who criticizes Bush, frequently gets caled a commie, unAmerican, a traitor etc. The left leaners and the Democrats on the board have their own faults but I don't see the same kind of, "If you disagree with me your not an American and are a traitor", sentiments coming from that side of the fence. I know 3 people who were directly affected by the 9/11 tragedy, out of the 3, 1 is a Republican who supports Bush and 2 are Democrats who do not. Does this mean the 2 who do not support Bush are un-American ?. C'mon, these people made the ultimate sacrifice for this country, their family and loved ones. How dare anyone call them un-American. Me-I can't stand the current occupant of the White House and while I respected his father a lot more, I certainly didn't like or agree with him. My father was a 1st Lieutenant in the Army during WW2, there was no-one more gung-ho America and critical of the Bush family then him. You can call the Bush critics, wrong, naive, uninformed, etc. etc. etc. (and of course they can come right back atcha) but stick that un-American/traitor B.S., right where the sun don't shine. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 474 Registered: 8-2003 |
Uke....I haven't seen any real traitor/commie stuff for Bush bashers on this board. I've seen personal attacks on other levels, but hardly any of the 'traitor' variety. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 83 Registered: 1-2003 |
Dave... You are jumping to conclusions. The weekly standard may be very conservative, but it is definetly reputable. They probably will release it when they have gotten their full use out of getting the scoop. Magazines are a business, and I don't recall the Times ever sharing info with the Post before it had the scoop. But making the jump to the reason they won't release it is that it won't hold up to scrutiny is a huge leap at best. You do not know if the reports will bear scrutiny. I'm not sure the DOD, FBI, or CIA knows. But the reports in the memo should at least make you see there COULD DEFINETLY be a connection between Saddam and UBL. Maybe they will be proven wrong, but it certainly is a lot of damning evidence if they are true. Why do you not even entertain the fact that they may be accurate? DrB- Quoting from that article... "A senior U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed grave fears that civilian officials in the Pentagon may be blindly accepting assertions by Chalabi and his aides that a U.S. invasion would trigger mass defections of Iraqi troops and a quick collapse of Iraqi resistance. " It seems the grave fears of this senior military official were wrong and Chalabi was right in this case. The invasion did trigger a mass defection of Iraqi soldiers from the army, the troops were and are welcomed by most of the Iraqi citizens, and there is no serious Iraqi resistance. Most of The Terrorists there are not from Iraq and it is not an Iraqi resistance it is Anti American terror groups trying to go against the will of the Iraqi people. In this case it seems Chalabi was totally correct. I don't know enough about Chalabi, but not including him in the IGC would have nbeen a serious mistake because he has worked for Iraqi liberation for years. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1899 Registered: 12-2001  |
Kenney, In saying that the current Bush policy in Iraq is the best policy available is not "having my cake and eating it too". I was opposed to invading Iraq long before we had passed the point of no return. Now that Bush has gotten us into this situation, our options are limited to sticking it out or bailing out. I favor the first option. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1900 Registered: 12-2001 |
Dearest Cliff, In response to: tjohn you say "criticism of our government when it is wrong is now to be considered appeasement of our enemies." So, please be specific, how is our government wrong in this situation? What should be done instead? What is right? What is the better plan? Don't have one? Then how do you go about proving it is wrong? " Please read my 1,234,567 posts on this very topic dating back to approximately October of 2002. If I may condense my concerns for you, it is basically this. It is wrong to start a war when you have other options (e.g. continued containment of Saddam) and you are unsure of the outcome (e.g. Israel in South Lebanon). Thankey. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5735 Registered: 4-1998 |
Mike,
Yes, "could". However, wouldn't it be prudent to have more solid evidence about the link or about the WMD before going to war? After the bogus nuclear threat, I think it's probably best to be skeptical about everything. See, I'm not jumping to conclusions. Just the opposite. My guess is that this selectively leaked, edited partial memo is not the full story. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 84 Registered: 1-2003 |
Its not the full story. But what do you think the full story could be? What do you think the "full story" would be that makes all of the articles points moot? How much evidence do you need to see that Saddam was a threat, and needed to be taken out? That is not a rhetorical question. If this article was in the Times would you believe it then? You will never have a smoking gun when you are talking about the terror underground. The best you can hope for is good intelligence, and sometimes its wrong (which may be the case with the niger uranium, but British intel still believes it is correct, we just have one guy here that disagrees with the analysis... why are you so sure he is right?), or sometimes its right and analyzed incorrectly (see pre 9/11 and the FBI). I don't think it would be prudent to have solid evidence before going in to a war like this one, by then it would be too late. The conclusion you jumped to is the reason the WS isn't sharing the memo where you said "I think we know why. It simply won't bear scrutiny. " You have absolutely no basis whatsoever to make that statement. It is total conjecture. That is the conclusion you jumped to. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 477 Registered: 8-2003 |
The problem, Michael, is you could justify the war on purely liberal or democrat terms (which were enunciated by Bush as well) and you still wouldn't get the support of his detractors. The problem is -- Bush fought the war, not Clinton or anyone else. It's a lost cause. | ||
| JJC Citizen Username: Mercury Post Number: 107 Registered: 12-2002 |
The point is - I'd like to hear the full story before I make up my mind. Or before I go off and invade another country. Before I kill 10s of thousands of civilians. But you won't get that from the Weekly Standard, the New York Times or any other single source. I think you have the intellegence thing completely backwards. There was no imminent danger that required us to invade Iraq. This was a war of choice. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5739 Registered: 4-1998 |
The full story could be that the sources for the information have an agenda (eg., getting rid of Saddam). The full story could also be that there is a connection. However, so much of the intel seems to read like "al qaida reaching out to work with Iraq", "Iraq trying to develop a relationship", etc. Either there is or isn't a relationship. Why the constant "reaching out", "developing", etc.? If there is a strong tie, there's no need for constant solicitation of cooperation. As for bearing scrutiny, the skeptic in me says it won't bear close analysis. Otherwise the WS would step up to the plate after all these days and remove the cloud of suspicion over the selectively leaked, edited story. There's no more cash in a scoop after day one. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 478 Registered: 8-2003 |
JJC -- if we knew people organized out of Afghanistan were plotting 9/11, should we have invaded? Or just stopped them and waited for them to try again....and only after they were successful have done something. All they had was boxcutters, after all. | ||
| JJC Citizen Username: Mercury Post Number: 108 Registered: 12-2002 |
Cjc - We were warned pre-9/11. Did nothing. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 80 Registered: 11-2003 |
but what about the children? to all my thoughts, add to the end: or not. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 479 Registered: 8-2003 |
JJC -- still haven't answered my question. We had a general warning, nothing specific. YET...say we knew specifically it was out of Afghanistan. Would you have led the charge to war based on that intelligence, even though the deed wasn't carried out? Kenney -- the children don't matter in Iraq. They do in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia and that missed opportunity in Rwanda (missed by Kofi and Bill). | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 85 Registered: 1-2003 |
A NEWSWEEK article by investigative reporters Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball about the memo linking Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein dismisses a recent WEEKLY STANDARD report as "hype" and concludes, the "tangled tale of the memo suggests that the case of whether there has been Iraqi-al Qaeda complicity is far from closed." While it's refreshing to see the establishment media pick up the story, the Newsweek article is less than authoritative. The authors write: "The Pentagon memo pointedly omits any reference to the interrogations of a host of other high-level al Qaeda and Iraqi detainees--including such notables as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Abu Zubaida, and Hijazi himself." Their claim is mistaken, as bullet-point No. 34 of the memo makes clear: During a 3 Sept 2002 interview, senior al Qaeda lieutenant Zubaida said that Bin Laden would ally al Qaeda with any entity willing to kill Americans. Zubaida explained, "my enemy's enemy is my friend." Bin Laden opposed a "formal" alliance because it may threaten al Qaeda's independence, but he saw the benefits of cooperation and viewed any entity that hated Americans and was willing to kill them as an "ally." Zubaida had suggested that the benefits of an alliance would outweigh the manageable risks to the integrity of al Qaeda. He said the potential benefits included access to WMD materials, such as weaponized chemical or biological weapons material, as well as funding and potential locations for safehaven and training. And here is bullet-point No. 39: During a May 2003 custodial interview with Faruq Hijazi, he said that in a 1994 meeting with Bin Laden in Sudan, Bin Laden requested that Iraq assist al Qaeda with the procurement of an unspecified number of Chinese-manufactured anti-ship limpet mines. Bin Laden thought that Iraq should be able to procure the mines through third-country intermediaries for ultimate delivery to al Qaeda. Hijazi said he was under orders from Saddam only to listen to Bin Laden's requests and then report back to him. Bin Laden also requested the establishment of al Qaeda training camps inside Iraq. So either Isikoff and Hosenball have not seen the memo or they misreport its contents. The Newsweek authors continue: "Overlooked in THE WEEKLY STANDARD hype, the Pentagon memo itself concedes that much of the more recent reporting about Iraqi-Al Qaeda ties is 'conflicting.'" This is exactly backwards. The Pentagon memo itself concedes no such thing. That characterization--"conflicting"--comes not from the memo, but from THE WEEKLY STANDARD article. Indeed, in describing the post-July 1999 reporting as "conflicting," I was arguably erring on the side of caution. I did so because of the claims of Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah. Abdallah is a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody who "said that the last contact between the IIS [Iraqi intelligence] and al Qaeda was in July 1999." Abdallah's debriefing stands out because it is the only reporting in the memo to suggest that the relationship may have ended. The Newsweek story goes on: "While Hayes's story insists 'the bulk of the reporting . . . contradicts [Abdallah's] claim,' the actual examples cited in the memo to buttress this point are less than persuasive." The Newsweek writers offer two examples--allegations that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague and reporting from Ibn al-Shayk al-Libi, a senior al Qaeda operative who was captured in Pakistan and turned over to U.S. custody in early January 2002. The most recent alleged Atta meeting, in April 2001, is disputed, a fact THE WEEKLY STANDARD article makes clear. Isikoff and Hosenball claim that the intelligence is bogus, as U.S. investigators have "not unearthed a scintilla of evidence that Atta was even in Prague at the time of the alleged rendezvous." (See Edward Jay Epstein's recent report in Slate for a fuller account of the controversy over this meeting.) Czech intelligence, however, reports not one but four meetings between Iraqi intelligence and Atta. The CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague, but "data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS." This disclaimer was reported in THE WEEKLY STANDARD article, which also noted that the Czech government continues to stand by its reporting. Isikoff and Hosenball dismiss the reporting from al-Libi as "hearsay" and tell us that his reporting is "sometimes spotty," while noting that Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice have cited the information from al-Libi. According to intelligence sources interviewed by THE WEEKLY STANDARD, al-Libi's reporting has been among the most reliable of the al Qaeda detainees. (Isikoff himself reported on al-Libi last October, saying he and Zubaida "described efforts by Qaeda operatives to seek out Iraqi assistance in assembling chemical weapons." Isikoff qualified that reporting by adding, "how much help the Iraqis actually provided is 'really very fuzzy,' said one knowledgeable source.") But for the sake of argument, let's throw out the two examples that cause Isikoff and Hosenball heartburn. The memo contains 13 reports of collaboration after July 1999. Several of these appear to be well-sourced and corroborated. Among those reports is the one Colin Powell cited at his February 5, 2003, presentation at the United Nations Security Council. Here is reporting from bullet-point No. 37 in the memo: Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city . . . Powell, of course, was the senior administration official most skeptical of the links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Some may agree with Isikoff and Hosenball that such reports are "less than persuasive." Powell plainly was persuaded. The Newsweek authors also cite an unnamed "U.S. official" who claims that the intelligence in the memo was selectively presented and "contradicted by other things." To support this argument, Isikoff and Hosenball cite a late 1998 trip to Afghanistan by Faruq Hijazi. Hijazi served Saddam Hussein both as deputy director of Iraqi intelligence and later as ambassador to Turkey. At that meeting, the authors contend, bin Laden rejected an Iraqi offer of asylum. Their source is Vince Cannistraro, a knowledgeable former CIA counterterrorism official--the kind of expert whose views should be taken very seriously. He may be right. And if his understanding of the meeting's outcome is accurate, that information certainly should have been included in the Feith memo. But stop for a moment and consider what this analysis means. It demonstrates that at the very least, Saddam Hussein was willing to give Osama bin Laden asylum in Iraq. Is this not precisely the kind of collusion the administration cited as it made its case for war? If such a distinguished skeptic of the links believes that Saddam Hussein would have offered bin Laden asylum, why is it so hard to believe--to take one example from a "well-placed source" cited in the Feith memo--that Hussein sent his intelligence director to bin Laden's farm in 1996 to train the al Qaeda leader in explosives? Or, to take another from a "regular and reliable source" mentioned in the memo, that bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al Zawahiri, "visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998"? Further, the visit Hijazi paid bin Laden in 1998 to allegedly offer him asylum was one of many meetings between Hijazi and al Qaeda. And, according to an analysis in the memo, it wasn't just Hijazi. "Reporting entries #4, #11, #15, #16, #17, #18, from different sources, corroborate each other and provide confirmation of meetings between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan." It is, of course, possible that the information in the Feith memo is "cherry-picked" intelligence. It's also possible that some of the bullet points listed won't check out on further analysis. But Feith isn't alone in his conclusion that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had a relationship. CIA Director George Tenet said more than a year ago that his agency had "solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade," that the CIA had "credible information" about discussions between Iraq and al Qaeda on "safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression" and "solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad," and "credible reporting" that "Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." When it comes to Newsweek's charge of hype, the case is decidedly not closed. Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5740 Registered: 4-1998 |
We already know Al Qaida was operating in northern, Kurdish areas of Iraq (an area outside of Baghdad's control). this entire leaked story and the attention it's getting is an attempt at deflection from the fruitless search for WMD, the reason for the war in the first place. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 87 Registered: 1-2003 |
Once again, we won't know if its fruitless for a while. And if these reports are accurate (and I grant it is a big if) what of the ones that state "Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000." What, were they getting training with make believe Chem and Bio weapons? This is not a deflection... it is the point. No one would really care if Saddam had WMD if we were sure he wouldn't use them to invade another country, or give them to terrorists he has relationships to use against us. The problem is that we were and are sure he would give them to terrorists. A point this memo makes very clear. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 265 Registered: 6-2003 |
It's not hard to offer a better plan. In simple terms: 1. wait longer, 2. make a clearer case, 3. honor the nation's treaty commitments, 4. invade with legal authority and material assistance from key allies, 5. occupy in sufficient strength to maintain law and order, 6. establish a government of occupation that conforms to international legal norms, and finance it from the resources of the country (yes, this means the oil). In the postwar period: 7. gradually hand over responsibility to Iraqi citizens within the framework of the new government. 8. respect the legal rights of individuals whose property has been taken by the occupying power, or who have been injured or imprisoned. Pay compensation where necessary. 9. use the international criminal court to try the individuals responsible for specific crimes, and punish them in accordance with the court's judgements. Most importantly, don't move beyond step 1 until steps 2-9 have been discussed and agreed to with the country's traditional allies. |
