President Bush: Flip-Flopper in Chief

[Mavdog]

not very original, nor does it link hussein to islamic terrorist who attacked america.

guess who was the primary benefactor of the IIS in the 1980's? yep, america was.

mko? there's been efforts to remove them from the terrorist list, even bills in the 90's by john ashcroft and kit bond endorsing the mko and their cause (toppling the iranian theocracy).

missing from the list is any mention of al queda, or anyone having anything to do with al queda.

hussein and iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, until of course we invaded iraq brought that fight to doorsteps of the iraqis.

[dude1394]

Sheesh...you ask me a question, I answer it. You ignore the answer and repeat your assertion which I have not made about Saddam being linked to the terrorists that attacked the us.

Your question:

still waiting for the support for the claim "saddam was a supporter of terrorism throughout the world".......

I answered with his support for international terrorism. The assertion was that he supported international terrorism... Since he had WMDs, the fear was obvious that he would provide them.

You can disagree with that assertion but not with the facts that
1. Al Queda (Zarqawi) was in Iraq from Afghanistan. He received medical treatment there under the safety of Usay(or Qusay) Hussein.
2. That Saddam was a supporter of international terrorism.

[Janett_Reno]

March 2003 oil $35.00 a barrell

October 15, 2007 oil $85.00 a barrell

Iraq is about oil and this adm wanting those oil wells flowing in Iraq. Even retired Gen. John Abizaid admits this. Now you can draw your on conclusion about the next comment, alot feel W is trying to open these oil wells to bring the price of oil down. Big money backs W and Chains and now Rudy is in with them, from T Boone Pickens to many others. It is your own opinion if he is trying to shoot oil up higher or bring the prices down but big oil money put Chains and W in office. They must do all they can to try to put Rudy in office. It is a win, win situation for big oil either way.

I feel oil will hit alot higher record than it did today, reaching $100.00 a barrell before this adm leaves.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Sheesh...you ask me a question, I answer it. You ignore the answer and repeat your assertion which I have not made about Saddam being linked to the terrorists that attacked the us.

Your question:

I answered with his support for international terrorism. The assertion was that he supported international terrorism... Since he had WMDs, the fear was obvious that he would provide them.

You can disagree with that assertion but not with the facts that
1. Al Queda (Zarqawi) was in Iraq from Afghanistan. He received medical treatment there under the safety of Usay(or Qusay) Hussein.
2. That Saddam was a supporter of international terrorism.

"since he had WMD's"?????

sit down, there's something you need to understand: there were no wmd's in iraq.

shocking news, eh?

when did zarqawi align himself with al queda? the date is put at october 2004.

the us invaded iraq in march 2003.

as for the "supporter of international terrorism", you apparently believe that support for the palestinian militants is cause for war.

should the us invade all the countries that support these groups?

if you say yes, how do you feel about invading saudi arabia?

the bottom line is attempting to justify the invasion of iraq based on iraq's supposed link to the terrorist who attacked the us is totally falacious.

iraq was not a part of the war on terrorism until the us brought that battle to iraq.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"since he had WMD's"?????

sit down, there's something you need to understand: there were no wmd's in iraq.

shocking news, eh?[/quote]
At the time. I was talking about historical context.

when did zarqawi align himself with al queda? the date is put at october 2004.

the us invaded iraq in march 2003.

In afghanistan, he was there and injured in the US attack. See Hitchens statement.

as for the "supporter of international terrorism", you apparently believe that support for the palestinian militants is cause for war.

Don't put words in my mouth, we are arguing specific points here, don't jump to conclusions. You asked me about him being a supporter of internation terrorism, Abu Nidal was certainly that. We can disagree about whether Hamas/Hezbollah Iranian proxies are international or not but don't change the points we are debating.

should the us invade all the countries that support these groups?

if you say yes, how do you feel about invading saudi arabia?

does Saudia Arabia officially give 25K to suicide bombers? Do they officially harbor international terrorists? Do they have "known" WDM programs?

the bottom line is attempting to justify the invasion of iraq based on iraq's supposed link to the terrorist who attacked the us is totally falacious.

iraq was not a part of the war on terrorism until the us brought that battle to iraq.

If you read carefully I'm not trying to do that, there were many reasons to invade iraq, links to al queda and international terrorism is just one of them. Al queda was in iraq, that's a fact. Invading Iraq to "get" Al Queda was not really a stated goal, only that the possibility that Iraq would provide WMD to terrorists was too great to wait for.

Edit: Edited for snarkiness.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

At the time. I was talking about historical context.

so what you meant was not that there were wmd's in iraq, but rather that there was a mistaken belief that there were wmd in iraq, right?

In afghanistan, he was there and injured in the US attack. See Hitchens statement.

so now we're talking about people in afganistan not in iraq? and if a person was in afganistan, they are then clearly al queda, and wherever they go they extend al queda to where they are?

are you serious, that is the justification that "al queda was in iraq before the us invasion"???

Don't put words in my mouth, we are arguing specific points here, don't jump to conclusions. You asked me about him being a supporter of internation terrorism, Abu Nidal was certainly that. We can disagree about whether Hamas/Hezbollah Iranian proxies are international or not but don't change the points we are debating.

abu nidal was an international criminal, he was not al queda. period.

abu nidal was not involved in the war on terrorism.

does Saudia Arabia officially give 25K to suicide bombers? Do they officially harbor international terrorists? Do they have "known" WDM programs? You are better than this.

do a google on Limor Livnat, the israeli education minister in sharon's government, and the evidence he presented that saudi arabia provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the families of suicide bombers who attacked israeli targets.

so the answer is yes, saudi arabia did give money to suicide bombers. should we invade them too?

If you read carefully I'm not trying to do that, there were many reasons to invade iraq, links to al queda and international terrorism is just one of them. Al queda was in iraq, that's a fact. Invading Iraq to "get" Al Queda was not really a stated goal, only that the possibility that Iraq would provide WMD to terrorists was too great to wait for.

no, it is NOT a "fact" that al queda was in iraq, and I've pointed out the falacies of making that very claim.

to continue to claim that sadam hussein was involved with those who attacked the us has no basis in fact, and is a claim that should be placed alongside the infamous wmd accusation. hollow would be the operative word.

[mcsluggo]

Dude, even assuming all of the suppositions you cite are completlely correct... surely the fact that one man (who ENDED UP leading al qada forces in Iraq) fled to the country (but to the part of the country that the remnants of the gulfwar1 forces were at that time keeping out of Sadaam's control), provides a pretty damn weak argument that Iraq was the logical next step inthe war against al qada, or even the war against the (purpously) amorphous "terrorism" in general.

No? Or am I missing something?

[Janett_Reno]

Then, why did we invade Iraq? I understand if we all say that the adm sold us on wmd's and scarred us and trumped up charges, to where congress and all finally backed it but let's all be honest and is the one thing we can say why we attacked Iraq is the fact Sadam was an evil bad man? Is this all? I know oil was a factor and trying to open those oil wells up.

I feel this is where this adm fails because they can't say i am sorry, we made a mistake and what is the best for us to do now. Yes, even congress and all agreed to going in should. I really feel Mavdog said it right and Mavdog, what do you feel our options are now and what should we do?

It was talks at one time of breaking the country down in three sections but now Turkey and the Kurds are wanting to fight and probably that wouldn't work. It is a possibility it could work but i feel it would still be fighting and violence. I feel if we bring in more troops or less troops, how can this stop the suicide bombers and terror if we do not guard ever inch of the Iraqi border? If we get out, who ever is the strongest and meanest will take over the country and it will be bad bad violence untill a dictator takes it over and rules it with an iron fist.

I feel if we had many other countries working with us and footing the bill finacially, man power, and more influence on muslim naions it would help. Mavdog, do you see any good way out of a bad situation or do we just stay there for years and years and some months are better than others? I understand this war was un called for and a terrible thing but is this the right way and track we are on with Maliki and just wishing soon the Iraqi army and gov can defend itself?

[Janett_Reno]

I was just reading this on the same subject we are talking about and by reading you can see how bad it is. I think many are racking their brain to try to figure out what to do.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12 Former Army Captains Write 'Antiwar' Op-Ed for 'Wash Post'

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003658799

Those who have fought in Iraq for the U.S. increasingly are voicing their concerns in print. An Op-Ed by seven active duty soldiers in The New York Times raising doubts about the war drew wide attention when it was published -- and then more recently when two of seven were killed there. Now 12 former Army captains who served in Iraq have produced a signed Op-Ed for The Washington Post, also questioning the war and adding, "it's time to get out....America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice."

The Op-Ed is titled "The Real Iraq We Knew" and is available at www.washingtonpost.com. The names and background of the 12 appear at the end. Here is an except.
*

As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out....

The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq's oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.

U.S. forces, responsible for too many objectives and too much "battle space," are vulnerable targets. The sad inevitability of a protracted draw-down is further escalation of attacks -- on U.S. troops, civilian leaders and advisory teams. They would also no doubt get caught in the crossfire of the imminent Iraqi civil war.

Iraqi security forces would not be able to salvage the situation. Even if all the Iraqi military and police were properly trained, equipped and truly committed, their 346,000 personnel would be too few. As it is, Iraqi soldiers quit at will. The police are effectively controlled by militias. And, again, corruption is debilitating. U.S. tax dollars enrich self-serving generals and support the very elements that will battle each other after we're gone.

This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war -- and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so what you meant was not that there were wmd's in iraq, but rather that there was a mistaken belief that there were wmd in iraq, right?

Yes the entire world and Saddam Hussein thought there were wmd's in Iraq.

so now we're talking about people in afganistan not in iraq? and if a person was in afganistan, they are then clearly al queda, and wherever they go they extend al queda to where they are?

No Zarqawi came to Iraq from fighting the US from Afghanistan. He was aligned with Al Queda in Afghanistan. He came to iraq and was given safe haven by uday(??) hussein. If this one guy were Bin Laden would that have been Al Queda in Iraq?

are you serious, that is the justification that "al queda was in iraq before the us invasion"???

No, it's just a fact that Zarqawi (who probably has killed more people in the name of Al Queda than Bin Laden has) was Al Queda in Iraq before we invaded. So technically Al Queda was in iraq before we invaded. That was not the only justification for the invasion but one of them. And with respect to the "north" we have Al Queda there now, there was nothing to keep them from being in the north. We had no troops on the ground.

abu nidal was an international criminal, he was not al queda. period.

abu nidal was not involved in the war on terrorism.

As you say he was an international terrorist, ergo, saddam hussein harbored and supported international terrorism as I stated.

do a google on Limor Livnat, the israeli education minister in sharon's government, and the evidence he presented that saudi arabia provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the families of suicide bombers who attacked israeli targets.

so the answer is yes, saudi arabia did give money to suicide bombers. should we invade them too?

No because of the many other reasons I've already stated. Iraq was invaded for multiple reasons, you know that. I'll remind you of what YOUR government stated was the reason for invading Iraq.

Here is the aumf that was passed by your government after a full and fair debate.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

no, it is NOT a "fact" that al queda was in iraq, and I've pointed out the falacies of making that very claim.

Yes it IS a fact by virtue of the leader of Al Queda in Iraq being there.

to continue to claim that sadam hussein was involved with those who attacked the us has no basis in fact, and is a claim that should be placed alongside the infamous wmd accusation. hollow would be the operative word.

Again I did not claim that, just claimed and continue to that Al Queda was in Iraq before we invaded.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Dude, even assuming all of the suppositions you cite are completlely correct... surely the fact that one man (who ENDED UP leading al qada forces in Iraq) fled to the country (but to the part of the country that the remnants of the gulfwar1 forces were at that time keeping out of Sadaam's control), provides a pretty damn weak argument that Iraq was the logical next step inthe war against al qada, or even the war against the (purpously) amorphous "terrorism" in general.

No? Or am I missing something?

what if that one man was Bin Laden? Al Queda is nothing like we've ever seen before, thinking of it in traditional terms imo is false.

That he "may" have fled to the north is irrelevant imo. We have Al Queda in the north now and we have 160+ troops on the ground.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yes the entire world and Saddam Hussein thought there were wmd's in Iraq.

that is not accurate. there were people, and they were here on this planet mind you, who did not think there were wmd in iraq. the problem is they were marginalized, suppressed, so their voices were dismissed.

there was a very interesting article a week or so ago about the main source of the wmd fiasco. the germans had him, and they didn't allow american intelligence to interview him. yet the us intelligence services accepted the word of this source without question. they ignored the requirement of a personal interview to validate the source. why? because they wanted to believe what the source told them.

they were eager to have the ability to remove any qualification to the claim that iraq had wmd. they were eager to go to war.

look where that has brought us.

No Zarqawi came to Iraq from fighting the US from Afghanistan. He was aligned with Al Queda in Afghanistan. He came to iraq and was given safe haven by uday(??) hussein. If this one guy were Bin Laden would that have been Al Queda in Iraq?

the 2006 senate select committee on intelligence strongly disagrees with you. in fact, their report says just the opposite, that zarqawi was not protected by any hussein, and that saddam hussein attempted to kill zarqawi, and that he despised bin laden.

No, it's just a fact that Zarqawi (who probably has killed more people in the name of Al Queda than Bin Laden has) was Al Queda in Iraq before we invaded. So technically Al Queda was in iraq before we invaded. That was not the only justification for the invasion but one of them. And with respect to the "north" we have Al Queda there now, there was nothing to keep them from being in the north. We had no troops on the ground.

there was no "al queda in iraq" before the us invasion. zarqawi did not form that umbrella organization until over a year after the invasion.

As you say he was an international terrorist, ergo, saddam hussein harbored and supported international terrorism as I stated.

no, I said he was an international criminal. please try to be accurate.

No because of the many other reasons I've already stated. Iraq was invaded for multiple reasons, you know that. I'll remind you of what YOUR government stated was the reason for invading Iraq.

Here is the aumf that was passed by your government after a full and fair debate.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

it was wrong then, just like it remains wrong today. some of us were saying that very point then as we are saying today.

Yes it IS a fact by virtue of the leader of Al Queda in Iraq being there.

that's like saying we fought nazism in world war 1 because hitler fought in world war 1. that's ridiculous.

Again I did not claim that, just claimed and continue to that Al Queda was in Iraq before we invaded.

you stated above that one of the hussein sons gave "safe haven" to zarqawi, which is wrong. you claim that hussein "supported international terrorism", which is to say he was supporting those who attacked the us.

now you want to say that al queda was in iraq, even though there is no justification to connect saddam hussein to al queda. no evidence at all that hussein provided any refuge or support to al queda.

iraq was not involved with any of the terrorists who attacked the us, and to link the invasion of iraq as a necessary part of the war against terrorism is not only incorrect it is bordering on deceit.

[dude1394]

Some more info on Al Queda in Iraq. Pretty much agrees with Hitchens but adds as furthre evidence of some 1990's Al Queda/Iraqi collaborations supported by the CIA director.

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/tran...04.siegel.html

OBERT SIEGEL, host:

Today, British television broadcast an interview that was done by a retired member of Parliament with Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi leader again denied having weapons of mass destruction, and further denied any connection with Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization.

SOUNDBITE OF BRITISH TELEVISION BROADCAST

President SADDAM HUSSEIN (Iraq): (Through Translator) If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda and we believed in that relationship, we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it. Therefore, I would like to tell you directly, and also through you to anyone who is interested to know, that we have no relationship with al-Qaeda.

SIEGEL: That's Saddam Hussein on British television.

The question of Iraq's relationship to al-Qaeda has been debated within the US government. Competing arguments have harnessed bits of evidence that taken independently may not prove anything. Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker writes this week about this debate, which he says is over both conclusions and methods. And Jeffrey Goldberg joins us now.

And, Jeffrey, I'd like you, first, to tell us the story as best you know it of a man named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Mr. JEFFREY GOLDBERG (The New Yorker): Zarqawi is a high-ranking al-Qaeda operative who runs a subgroup of al-Qaeda. He is a specialist in chemical and biological weapons according to several European intelligence agencies, and he is most notable right now because he washed up mysteriously in Baghdad several months ago and was hospitalized in Baghdad. He was wounded, apparently, fighting the Americans in Afghanistan. The question is: How does someone--he's a one-legged, bearded, Arab-Afghan fighter. How does someone like that wash up in Baghdad, in hospital, in a country that's a secret police-run state without the leadership of this country knowing and approving of his presence?

SIEGEL: And what is he supposed to have done since he was in the hospital in Baghdad?

Mr. GOLDBERG: Well, according to the information I have, he was in the hospital and he apparently has relations with a group in northern Iraq that is said to be co-sponsored by Saddam and al-Qaeda. When the Jordanians, who have been seeking Zarqawi for some time for arrest, requested his extradition to Jordan, he disappeared from the hospital and has not been seen since, although American intelligence believes he was floating around Baghdad for quite a while.

SIEGEL: So this man might personify a link conceivably between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Mr. GOLDBERG: He is one of several men who might personify a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

SIEGEL: Newsweek, by the way, quotes German police documents this week as saying that actually he's much closer to Iran. That's where he really does his work. He's not in partnership with the Iraqis.

Mr. GOLDBERG: Right. This is a competing claim. There are a lot of American officials who would say, `No, it's more on the side of Iraq.' But again, sponsorship does not have to be monogamous.

SIEGEL: It's reported that Colin Powell is expected at the UN tomorrow to reveal recorded conversations between Iraqis which show, we read, that the Iraqis have been trying to evade weapons inspectors.

Mr. GOLDBERG: Right.

SIEGEL: Do you have sense that there are any similar intelligence intercepts which similarly, and equally conclusively, show that they're connected to al-Qaeda in some way?

Mr. GOLDBERG: I have no information in terms of intercepts. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they found those. However, I think what has happened over the past year is that as the CIA has captured a good number of al-Qaeda operatives, high-ranking al-Qaeda operatives, and has debriefed them, interrogated them or have the Jordanians do those interrogations, they've developed some information about the links between al-Qaeda and Saddam. And I think he'll be bringing some of that information out before the UN, although my assumption is that most of his presentation will be on the weapons of mass destruction issue.

SIEGEL: In all of your reporting on al-Qaeda and Iraq, what's the strongest piece of evidence you've seen of all that would suggest there really is a link between the two?

Mr. GOLDBERG: I would have to say it's something that I learned of just recently in having this new story, which is that in the mid-'90s, a series of emissaries went from Afghanistan, earlier from Sudan, to Baghdad in order to convince the Iraqi Intelligence Service to provide al-Qaeda with chemical weapons training in Afghanistan. According to my sources, those emissaries succeeded and Iraqis did, in fact, help al-Qaeda in the teaching of the use of poison gas. This is also, by the way, a claim that's not my own. The CIA director in October said as much in a letter to Senator Bob Graham.

SIEGEL: If one deals too much with the odd encounter many years ago between emissaries from al-Qaeda and somebody in Baghdad, do you risk finding a relationship between al-Qaeda and a government which one could match with other governments? I mean, we could find stronger links between us in the past and Afghan Muslim fighters fighting against the Soviet Union. There seems to be a lot of shadowy contact being made between people who may later be declared terrorists and governments. Is there something unique to these contacts with Iraq that stands out?

Mr. GOLDBERG: I would say at this point, the information the US intelligence community has--it's more than just coincidence or it's more than just a matter of ships passing in the night. These seem to be very deliberate meetings with well-organized agendas whose goal is to develop a serious relationship between these two sides.

SIEGEL: Jeffrey Goldberg, thank you very much for talking with us.

Mr. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

SIEGEL: Jeffrey Goldberg, who writes for The New Yorker magazine, and is a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC.