Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Oh that harmless Saddam

  1. #1
    Iraqi Documents Show Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties

    Scott Wheeler, CNSNews.com
    Monday, Oct. 4, 2004

    Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al-Qaida, to target Americans.

    The documents demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.


    One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al-Qaida.

    Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.

    Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed blame for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.

    The Source

    A senior government official who is not a political appointee provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. The originals, some of which were hand-written and others typed, are in Arabic. CNSNews.com had the papers translated into English by two individuals separately and independent of each other.

    There are no handwriting samples to which the documents can be compared for forensic analysis and authentication. However, three other experts - a former weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), a retired CIA counter-terrorism official with vast experience dealing with Iraq, and a former advisor to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton on Iraq - were asked to analyze the documents. All said they comport with the format, style and content of other Iraqi documents from that era known to be genuine.

    Laurie Mylroie, who wrote the book "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America," and advised Bill Clinton on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, told CNSNews.com that the papers represented "the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism" against the U.S.

    Mylroie has long maintained that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism against the United States. The documents obtained by CNSNews.com, she said, include "correspondence back and forth between Saddam's office and Iraqi Mukhabarat [intelligence agency]. They make sense. This is what one would think Saddam was doing at the time."

    Bruce Tefft, a retired CIA official who specialized in counter-terrorism and had extensive experience dealing with Iraq, said that "based on available, unclassified and open source information, the details in these documents are accurate ..."

    The former UNSCOM inspector zeroed in on the signatures on the documents and "the names of some of the people who sign off on these things.

    "This is fairly typical of that time era. [The Iraqis] were meticulous record keepers," added the former U.N. official, who spoke with CNSNews.com on the condition of anonymity.

    The senior government official, who furnished the documents to CNSNews.com, said the papers answer "whether or not Iraq was a state sponsor of Islamic terrorism against the United States. It also answers whether or not Iraq had an ongoing biological warfare project continuing through the period when the UNSCOM inspections ended."

    Presidential Campaign

    The presidential campaign is currently dominated by debate over whether Saddam procured weapons of mass destruction and whether his government sponsored terrorism aimed at Americans before the U.S. invaded Iraq last year. Democrat nominee Sen. John Kerry has repeatedly rejected that possibility and criticized President Bush for needlessly invading Iraq.

    "[Bush's] two main rationales - weapons of mass destruction and the al-Qaida/September 11 connection - have been proved false ... by the president's own weapons inspectors ... and by the 9/11 commission," Kerry told an audience at New York University on Sept. 20.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee's probe of the 9/11 intelligence failures also could not produce any definitive links between Saddam's government and 9/11. And United Nations as well as U.S. weapons inspectors in Iraq have been unable to find the biological and chemical weapons Saddam was suspected of possessing.

    But the documents obtained by CNSNews.com shed new light on the controversy.

    They detail the Iraqi regime's purchase of five kilograms of mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and three vials of malignant pustule, another term for anthrax, on Sept. 6, 2000. The purchase order for the mustard gas includes gas masks, filters and rubber gloves. The order for the anthrax includes sterilization and decontamination equipment.


    The documents show that Iraqi intelligence received the mustard gas and anthrax from "Saddam's company," which Tefft said was probably a reference to Saddam General Establishment, "a complex of factories involved with, amongst other things, precision optics, missile, and artillery fabrication."

    "Sa'ad's general company" is listed on the Iraqi documents as the supplier of the sterilization and decontamination equipment that accompanied the anthrax vials. Tefft believes this is a reference to the Salah Al-Din State Establishment, also involved in missile construction.


    Jaber Ibn Hayan General Co. is listed as the supplier of the safety equipment that accompanied the mustard gas order. Tefft described the company as "a 'turn-key' project built by Romania, designed to produce protective CW [conventional warfare] and BW [biological warfare] equipment [gas masks and protective clothing]."

    "Iraq had an ongoing biological warfare project continuing through the period when the UNSCOM inspections ended," the senior government official and source of the documents said. "This should cause us to redouble our efforts to find the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs."

    'Hunt the Americans'

    The first of the 42 pages of Iraqi documents is dated Jan. 18, 1993, approximately two years after American troops defeated Saddam's army in the first Persian Gulf War. The memo includes Saddam's directive that "the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements ..."

    On Oct. 3, 1993, less than nine months after that Iraqi memo was written, American soldiers were ambushed in Mogadishu, Somalia by forces loyal to Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid, an alleged associate of Osama bin Laden. Eighteen Americans were killed and 84 wounded during a 17-hour firefight that followed the ambush in which Aidid's followers used civilians as decoys.

    An 11-page Iraqi memo, dated Jan. 25, 1993, lists Palestinian, Sudanese and Asian terrorist organizations and the relationships Iraq had with each of them. Of particular importance, Tefft said, are the relationships Iraq had already developed or was in the process of developing with groups and individuals affiliated with al-Qaida, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The U.S. is offering rewards of up to $25 million for each man's capture.

    The documents describe Al-Jehad wa'l Tajdeed as "a secret Palestinian organization" founded after the first Persian Gulf War that "believes in armed struggle against U.S. and western interests." The leaders of the group, according to the Iraqi memo, were stationed in Jordan in 1993, and when one of those leaders visited Iraq in November 1992, he "showed the readiness of his organization to execute operations against U.S. interests at any time."

    Tefft believes the Tajdeed group likely included al-Zarqawi, whom Teft described as "our current terrorist nemesis" in Iraq, "a Palestinian on a Jordanian passport who was with al-Qaida and bin Laden in Afghanistan prior to this period [1993]."

    Tajdeed, which means Islamic Renewal, "has a Web site that posts Zarqawi's speeches, messages, claims of assassinations and beheading videos," Tefft told CNSNews.com. "The apparent linkages are too close to be accidental" and might "be one of the first operational contacts between an al-Qaida group and Iraq."


    Tefft said the documents, all of which the Iraqi Intelligence Service labeled "Top secret, personal and urgent," showed several links between Saddam's government and terror groups dedicated not only to targeting America but also U.S. allies such as Egypt and Israel.

    The same 11-page memo refers to the "re-opening of the relationship" with Al-Jehad al-Islamy, which is described as "the most violent in Egypt," responsible for the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. The documents go on to describe a Dec. 14, 1990 meeting between Iraqi intelligence officials and a representative of Al-Jehad al-Islamy, that ended in an agreement "to move against [the] Egyptian regime by doing martyr operations on conditions that we should secure the finance, training and equipments."

    Al-Zawahiri was one of the leaders of Jehad al-Islamy, also known as Egyptian Islamic Group, and participated in the assassination of Sadat, Tefft said. "Iraq's contact with the Egyptian Islamic Group is another operational contact between Iraq and al-Qaida," he added.

    One of the Asian groups listed on the Iraqi intelligence memo is J.U.I., also known as Islamic Clerks Society. The group is led by Mawlana Fadhel al-Rahman, whom Tefft said is "an al-Qaida member and co-signed Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious ruling) to kill Americans." The Iraqi memo from 1993 states that J.U.I.'s secretary general "has a good relationship with our system since 1981 and he is ready for any mission." Tefft said the memo shows "another direct Iraq link to an al-Qaida group."

    Iraq had also maintained a relationship with the Afghani Islamist party since 1989, according to the memo. The "relationship was improved and became directly between the leader, Hekmatyar and Iraq," it states, referring to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghani warlord who fought against the Soviet Union and current al-Qaida ally, according to Tefft.

    Last year, American authorities in Afghanistan ranked Hekmatyar third on their most wanted list, behind only bin Laden and former Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Hekmatyar represents "another Iraqi link to an al-Qaida group," Tefft said.

    The Iraqi intelligence documents also refer to terrorist groups previously believed to have had links with Saddam Hussein. They include Palestine Liberation Front, a group dedicated to attacking Israel, and according to the Iraqi memo, one with "an office in Baghdad."


    Abu Nidal

    The Abu Nidal group, suspected by the CIA of having acted as surrogates for Iraqi terrorist attacks, is also mentioned.

    "The movement believes in political violence and assassinations," the 1993 Iraqi memo states in reference to the Abu Nidal organization. "We have relationships with them since 1973. Currently, they have a representative in the country. Monthly helps are given to them - 20 thousand dinars - in addition to other supports," the memo explains. (See Saddam's Connections to Palestinian Terror Groups)

    Iraq not only built and maintained relationships with terrorist groups, the documents show it appears to have trained terrorists as well. Ninety-two individuals from various Middle Eastern countries are listed on the papers.

    Many are described as having "finished the course at M14," a reference to an Iraqi intelligence agency, and to having "participated in Umm El-Ma'arek," the Iraqi response to the U.S. invasion in 1991. The author of the list notes that approximately half of the individuals "all got trained inside the 'martyr act camp' that belonged to our directorate."

    The former UNSCOM weapons inspector who was asked to analyze the documents believes it's clear that the Iraqis "were training people there in assassination and suicide bombing techniques ... including non-Iraqis."


    Bush Administration Likely Unaware of Documents


    The senior government official and source of the Iraqi intelligence memos, explained that the reason the documents had not been made public before now was that the government has "thousands and thousands of documents waiting to be translated.

    "It is unlikely they even know this exists," the source added.

    The government official also explained that the motivation for leaking the documents "is strictly national security and helping with the war on terrorism by focusing this country's attention on facts and away from political posturing."

    "This is too important to let it get caught up in the political process," the source told CNSNews.com.

    To protect against the Iraqi intelligence documents being altered or misrepresented elsewhere on the Internet, CNSNews.com has decided to publish only the first of the 42 pages in Arabic, along with the English translation. Portions of some of the other memos in translated form are also being published to accompany this report. Credentialed journalists and counter-terrorism experts seeking to view the 42 pages of Arabic documents or to challenge their authenticity may make arrangements to do so at CNSNews.com's headquarters in Alexandria, Va.

  2. #2
    Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2004 12:02 a.m. EDT

    Iraqi Physicist: Saddam Funded Nuke Program Till 2003

    The Iraqi physicist who ran his country's uranium enrichment program says that Saddam Hussein continued to fund efforts to develop nuclear weapons right up until the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

    "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 . . . until the war in 2003," reveals Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, in his new book "The Bomb in My Garden."

    While Saddam's nuclear program officially ended after the first Gulf War, the reality, says Dr. Obeidi, was far different.

    "I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he now admits.

    In an interview with WABC Radio's John Gambling, the Iraqi centrifuge scientist said he was ordered to keep his nuclear bombmaking research concealed from U.N. weapons inspectors.

    And even after 1997 - when Saddam's nuke program went dormant - Obeidi says he continued to keep his centrifuge plans in safe storage - in a cardboard box buried beneath a lotus plant in his front yard.

    "I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," Obeidi explained, saying his only other choice was death. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.

    "The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," he writes. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."

    The nuke plans he buried included "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge."

    Writes Dr. Obeidi:

    "Would Saddam have tried to build nuclear weapons again? One can only imagine he would have. For the time being, however, the core knowledge for rebuilding the centrifuge program lay buried in my garden, waiting for the order from Qusay Hussein or his father."

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    That just can't be true... can't, I tell you. There are NO TIES what-so-ever between Saddam and Al-Queda or any terror group. Bush lied and people died.

    [img]http://www.nzavs.org.nz/graphics/headSand.jpg[/img]

  4. #4
    hey you guys should be president and Sec of Defense!!!
    BEcause the Secretary of Defense and the President admit they they've found no real evidence of a link between al qeada and saddam...
    and yes..everyone knows saddam was a bad dude..But the question is, was a hastily planned war in the middle of the afghan campaign necessary?
    Was the threat SEVERLY exaggerrated? are we any safer?

    no yes no

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 5 2004, 08:28 AM
    [b] ...was a hastily planned war in the middle of the afghan campaign necessary... [/b][/quote]
    Funny..... weren't you one of those screaming and crying that the bush "regime" was planning this war in texas before he even got into office? That doesn't seem to hastily to me.

    You know something else... and just think about this for a minute... isn't it even possible that there are alot of things that "aren't being said" in the interest of security? You bet there is. Don't worry... I am sure you will see it all come together very soon.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 5 2004, 08:28 AM
    [b] hey you guys should be president and Sec of Defense!!!
    BEcause the Secretary of Defense and the President admit they they've found no real evidence of a link between al qeada and saddam...
    and yes..everyone knows saddam was a bad dude..But the question is, was a hastily planned war in the middle of the afghan campaign necessary?
    Was the threat SEVERLY exaggerrated? are we any safer?

    no yes no [/b][/quote]
    Its nice to see that, once again, you managed to completely avoid the substance of the post and flame the poster. Your mind is brilliant in how you get your point across without EVER having to address the point of another poster.


    Here... I will respond to your next post right now... " I know you are but what am I?"

    And your next post after that...

    "I'm rubber you're glue!"

    That about reaches your level.

  7. #7
    ummm...
    NO ONE has ever doubted that Saddm was a dangerous guy...
    BUT he was a brutal tyrant towards shiites and kurds...
    who else?
    he attacked iran in the early 80's over an oil field and attacked kuwait in 1990 over an oil field...

    inspectors found no wmds..still can't find em...Donald Rumsfeld found no hard evidence of an al qeada link...
    So everything that Bush and Cheney told us ..You know, about an impending Mushroom cloud if we do not immidiately act was an exaggereated lie...
    what is your problem!
    why can't you see that!
    If you still think it was a good idea to spend 200 billion dollars to turn Iraq into a war zone so be it..That's your perogative...If you think that the world is safer without saddam fine...you've been told a million times of the danger he posed!
    You can think what ever you want...
    BUT I KNow that al qeada operatives still living in america posed a larger threat to the US than Saddam did...


    Dick cheney said that the worst case scenario would be Saddam passing a suitcase nuke to a terro group..I agree..so we should have let the inspectors do their job...BUT everytime they failed to find anything it drove Cheney bonkers...
    If there real intention and ambition was to make sure Saddam had no weapons, then they would have let the inspectors complete their work...BUT that was NOT thier only intention...AND that's why we have the mess that we have today.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    574
    CNS News! I love them...Here is another hard hitting newspiece off their site...I know CBS/VIACOM DAN RATHER 60 Minutes...I know CNS gives us the hard truths that the mainstream press avoids because they are liberal elitists... Dear God, Please elect Bush for President...

    IRS Asked If Churches Can Pray for Bush Re-Election
    By Susan Jones
    CNSNews.com Morning Editor
    October 04, 2004

    (CNSNews.com) - Is it legal for churches to pray for the re-election of President George W. Bush during their services?

    The Christian Defense Coalition says it is seeking "clarification" from the Internal Revenue Service, before coalition members launch a two-week prayer tour in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

    "As Christians, we are praying that God grant President Bush four more years because of his support for the sanctity of human life, his strong commitment to the protection of traditional marriage and his stance on religious freedom and liberty in the public square," said the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition.

    "It is clear that the public policies of the president are more in line with historic Christianity then those of Senator Kerry. It is our hope that the IRS will not crush religious freedom by attempting to censor and control how churches feel compelled to pray," Mahoney said in a press release.

    The American Center for Law and Justice has written to the IRS on behalf of the Christian Defense Coalition, explaining that Mahoney plans to "offer prayer during the evening services in the churches he visits that God grants President Bush four more years as president and that Sen. Kerry does not become president."

    Americans United for Separation of Church and States, a group that monitors politics from the pulpit, says churches, like all tax-exempt organizations, "absolutely prohibited from supporting or opposing candidates for elected public office."

    Americans United says churches that support or oppose a candidate may face an IRS audit, fines and loss of tax-exempt status.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    AQ is not the only enemy. Hizbollah has killed Americans, for example, as has Hamas. Additionally, terrorists groups by their very nature are often loosely-connected cells that are difficult to classify and source or put definitively under one umbrella as opposed to another. Many sub-groups exist. Terrorists are often 'affliliated' with more than one larger group, like AQ or Hizbollah. This is a large reason why terrorists have been effective - they are difficult to track.

    So, it is folly and narrow-minded to think of our only enemy as being AQ or that the only thing we are fitghting in response to is 9-11 sole. Saddam was an active and wealthy supporter is Islamist terrorism. This is beyond discussion. There is also strong evidence that he and his apparatus and party have had numerous contacts with terrorists that are affiliated with AQ. This is beyond question. Saddam did not live up to the terms of his cease-fire agreement and was a regional aggressor who did not even come close to disclosing what he had done with his WMD (actual weapons) and their componentry. This is beyond question. Then, there are less concrete indications that WMD were smuggled into Syria or that Saddam intended to attack America (Russian intel believe so), or that the Atta-Ba'ath meeting in Prague happened (CIA doens't believe it, Czechs are almost shrieking in their steadfast belief that it did happen). What we see, then, is that information is not and can never be 100% reliable, especially before a big decision is made. It is a probailities and judgment game. Weight evidence, make decisions, and hope for the best. It's called Management.

    We have let groups like Al-Asqua Martyrs, Hizbollah, Hamas and AQ trhive for far too long. The marine barracks in Lebanon, the hostages in Iran, up to the current infitada and 9-11 are all the result of a decades-long mis-diagnosis of the nature of the threat of terrorism. Each attack is NOT isolated. The different groups are NOT independent of one another. You CAN'T separate the actual terrorists from the regimes that harbor and support them.

    Say what you want about the wisdom of the reasoning behind the Iraq War, or in the competency of the plan of implementation of that war...that is fair game. But that is procedural in nature. The fundamental insight made by the Bush administration that we face a broad-based, well-funded, detrmined and multi-facted enemy that goes by the name of Islamist Terror is the paramount acheivement of his tenure. We are not simply going after the perps of 9-11, as if it was simply a carjacking but on a much larger scale. No, we are going after all terrorist groups and the regimes that support them.

    Also - keep in mind that us morons, us every day people probably have access to about 20% of all the knowledge that the people who run our country do.

    Even if you think the Iraq War was a mistake, you should at least acknowledge and give Bush and the US credit for waking up to the threat. Clearly, clearly our strategy prior to 9-11 (blaming both parties here, and every President from Carter to Clinton, to even Dubya pre-9-11) was horribly wrong. We treated terrorism as an isolated thing that couldn't threaten us where we live. We didn't take it seriously, and didn't even respond when terrorists did succeed in killing Americans. Clearly, going after terrorists aggressively and the regimes that support them is preferrable to inaction...whatever you think of Iraq.

  10. #10
    YOu must fight terrorism..
    I agree..
    I think the Bush team did a haphazzard job in Afghanistan though..AND that's were the REAL theat was operating out of..

    I disagree that the iraqui invasion/occupation/oil theft operation has made us any safer..IN fact I think it has created more terrorists...

    Also..you can't just use 9-11 as a justification for all future US imperialism..
    WE weren't attacked by Iraq...YES you can make very logical arguments as to why Saddam should be removed...BUT bottom line is that the Bush team SEVERELY exagerrated the threat posed by Saddam..Thereby lying to the american people to make certain that they got the war they wanted since the mid 90's...
    FOr that reason alone I am voting for Kerry.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 5 2004, 09:32 AM
    [b] YOu must fight terrorism..
    I agree..
    I think the Bush team did a haphazzard job in Afghanistan though..AND that's were the REAL theat was operating out of..

    I disagree that the iraqui invasion/occupation/oil theft operation has made us any safer..IN fact I think it has created more terrorists...

    Also..you can't just use 9-11 as a justification for all future US imperialism..
    WE weren't attacked by Iraq...YES you can make very logical arguments as to why Saddam should be removed...BUT bottom line is that the Bush team SEVERELY exagerrated the threat posed by Saddam..Thereby lying to the american people to make certain that they got the war they wanted since the mid 90's...
    FOr that reason alone I am voting for Kerry. [/b][/quote]
    Bman, that is your opinion and that is fine. My opinion is very, very different.

    You can always use the "it's created more terrorists" line regarding ANY action we take. People said that about Afghanistan, even before the Iraq War was being talked about. Do you think potential terrorists really care whether or not Iraqi or Afghani babies are dying at the hands of the infidels? Do you really think potential terrorists that weren't persuaded to become terrorists by the Afghan invasion, but somehow were changed completely by the Iraq invasion? Do you really think potential terrorists think the Afghanistan War was justified and tgus, they said, "Ah, no need to become a terrorist unless they invade some OTHER place. But yeah, their imperialism in Afghanistan doesn't bother me...."

    I am not using 9-11 as justification for all future US imperialism. You simply refer to anything and everything as "imperialism."

    I think any rational person believes that we should have invaded Afghanistan sooner than we did? Right, I mean...possibly even years sooner, so as to perhaps prevent 9-11 and disrupt OBL apparatus. Yet we did not. Had we done so, you would called it imperialism, and likely would have yammered on about some pipeline or something, and you woudl have said "The Taliban never attacked us! They are bunch of morons, running around the mountains with old Kalishnikovs, thousands of miles away! We exaggerated the threat!" Then, when 9-11 was prevented, we'd have no way of knowing it was even being planned or could have succeeded, and thus, you'd still be convinced to this day that the Afghani War was a "lie" especially if 1000 US soldiers died during it.

    Thus is the risk of pre-emption. The more successful it is, the more difficult it becomes to prove it's necessity, ironically. It is open to second-guessing by it's very nature, I agree....

  12. #12
    dude..I don't even care anymore..this is so boring...I am voting for Kerry and I pray that Bush goes back to texas to retire!...I also think that Cheney can be brought up on charges and I pray that he faces severe pain!
    over and out

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    574
    A big concern i have is abuse of power. At what point, do we say a "pre-emptive" strike is necessary or unnecesary? What line do we draw? And how can the nation be assured we are doing the right thing? I agree that any pre-emptive strike is ripe for second guessing by its nature, but I think that is a healthy thing. Asking questions and searching for the absolute truth is an exercise that must continue.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 5 2004, 09:50 AM
    [b] dude..I don't even care anymore..this is so boring...I am voting for Kerry and I pray that Bush goes back to texas to retire!...I also think that Cheney can be brought up on charges and I pray that he faces severe pain!
    over and out [/b][/quote]
    no worries

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by 4th&Long[/i]@Oct 5 2004, 09:50 AM
    [b] A big concern i have is abuse of power. At what point, do we say a "pre-emptive" strike is necessary or unnecesary? What line do we draw? And how can the nation be assured we are doing the right thing? I agree that any pre-emptive strike is ripe for second guessing by its nature, but I think that is a healthy thing. Asking questions and searching for the absolute truth is an exercise that must continue. [/b][/quote]
    These are all valid concerns/points. No argument here.

  16. #16
    In February/March 2003 the only rationale President Bush gave for the pending United States invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was to disarm Saddam Hussein of his "stockpiles" of WMD's.

    As it turned out there were no such stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq so this meant that President Bush and Co. have had scramble for another rationale to explain this costly diversion from the War against Terrorism.

    So they've thrown everthing they thought would stick, and nothing has. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was and continues to be a fools errand.

    Bush will pay with his presidency.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by valleyjet[/i]@Oct 5 2004, 10:18 AM
    [b] In February/March 2003 the only rationale President Bush gave for the pending United States invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was to disarm Saddam Hussein of his "stockpiles" of WMD's.

    As it turned out there were no such stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq so this meant that President Bush and Co. have had scramble for another rationale to explain this costly diversion from the War against Terrorism.

    So they've thrown everthing they thought would stick, and nothing has. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was and continues to be a fools errand.

    Bush will pay with his presidency. [/b][/quote]
    There is no doubt whatsoever that you are Tailgators, and this post proves it.

    Additionally, your post is simply incorrect and incomplete. That was not the only rationale, sorry.

  18. #18
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Oct 5 2004, 10:23 AM
    [b] That was not the only rationale, sorry. [/b][/quote]
    Yes it was.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by valleyjet+Oct 5 2004, 10:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (valleyjet @ Oct 5 2004, 10:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-jets5ever[/i]@Oct 5 2004, 10:23 AM
    [b] That was not the only rationale, sorry. [/b][/quote]
    Yes it was. [/b][/quote]
    Really, so if we had found WMD and gotten rid of them we would have left Saddam in power afterwards? Regime change wasn&#39;t a reason?

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Stroudsburg, PA
    Posts
    3,456
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Oct 5 2004, 09:42 AM
    [b] I think any rational person believes that we should have invaded Afghanistan sooner than we did? Right, I mean...possibly even years sooner, so as to perhaps prevent 9-11 and disrupt OBL apparatus. Yet we did not. Had we done so, you would called it imperialism, and likely would have yammered on about some pipeline or something, and you woudl have said "The Taliban never attacked us&#33; They are bunch of morons, running around the mountains with old Kalishnikovs, thousands of miles away&#33; We exaggerated the threat&#33;" Then, when 9-11 was prevented, we&#39;d have no way of knowing it was even being planned or could have succeeded, and thus, you&#39;d still be convinced to this day that the Afghani War was a "lie" especially if 1000 US soldiers died during it. [/b][/quote]
    I have the feeling that the vast majority of the people who oppose the war in Iraq would&#39;ve never said any of those things if we had done them several years earlier, because at that time, President Clinton was in office...

    I don&#39;t recall any huge protests when we launched "pre-emptive" missile strikes on Baghdad during the Clinton administration&#39;s term in office, do you?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us