Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida

[LSSpam]

There was a long history of ties between the U.S. government, and Timothy McVeigh, via the U.S. military.

We should have attacked ourselves.

Well, we're really showing the dollar whose boss

 

[V Chip]

Sometimes it all boils down to what the meaning of is, is. I suspect the report will explain what it means by "operational links" and may even refer to the "non-operational" ones. We should wait and see.

To that end I think DD (with assist from BD) might be right -- this is specific wording that is 100% meant to imply that there is no link, so that people assume there is 100% no link, but also covering their own arses in case there is *some* link that is later revealed. It's legalese, a way to skirt the system with language.

Odd that legalese gains popularity as one's interests are affected positively, and is considered disdainful when one's interests are affected negatively (loopholes for taxes, Clinton's "definition of 'is' is" and definition of sex with ML, and now "operational").

Course between taking a short break betweeen typing this and previewing it the thread explodes for hundreds of posts, so if it was mentioned, mea culpa.

 

[blackadder]

Glad you're here to keep me straight. But that article does not support your contention. There was a long history of ties between the two, as was detailed in the 9-11 report. But no operational link, no 9-11 link. No one in the administration made that allegation. You keep wanting to inspect the individual parts of the puzzle(in hindsight) when decision makers at the time were looking at the puzzle as a whole, in the wake of a colossal intelligence failure which lead to 9-11. They did not want to be caught with their pants down, again. Now, in my book, once a decision to go to war is made, I expect my leaders to whip up support. There is a difference between that and deliberately lying. Since the war began, there has been precious little "whipping up," which has lead to some of the erosion of support for the war.

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. The 9-11 commision specifically debunked any collaboration between Saddam and Al Queda:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Indeterminate "links" are not the same as collaboration against the United States. We have "links" with very shady charachters all over the globe. That's how we keep tabs on them. If you apply the same rules to us, then we are supporting whatever it is they do, correct?

You are guilty of exactly the same thing you are accusing Reb of. You only want to examine your puzzle pieces individually also, and you are forcing them together into a picture they do not make, just as the adminsitration did, and leaving out pieces you do not like too.

You know this adminsitration was set to go after Iraq even prior to 9/11 and you know that it was on the agenda for many of Bush's supporters since the 1990s. Saddam was no more a threat on 9/12 than he was on 9/11 yet they chose to take advantage of a tragedy to create another one.

Even Clinton toyed with the idea of stirring up a confrontation with Saddam under pressure from the neoconservatives. Smartly, he backed away from it because he probably quickly determined it would be a fiasco.

According to book by reporter Dana Priest, “The Mission”, the Bill Clinton White House wanted then CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni to order his pilots to provoke a confrontation with Iraq in the no-fly zone by seeking to deliberately draw fire from the Iraqi military.

http://www.amazon.com/Mission-Waging-Keeping-Americas-Military/dp/0393010244

The request for the provocation was conveyed to General Zinni by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Ralston. But Zinni, who rightly believed that it could lead to an unwanted conflict, insisted that a formal request from the White House would have to be sent before he would give the order -- everything on the record. Clinton would not go on the record and the plan was dropped.

 

[Mr. Littlejeans]

"Saddam became too unpredictable. He sealed his fate when he launched missiles at Tel Aviv in the first Gulf War. For some reason, people seem to forget or gloss that over."

which DadsDream says was a response to:

"Which just goes to show how screwed up the area is.
Syria was no friend of Saddam."


Is there some way of interpreting "he sealed his fate" that I'm missing?

 

[RebSaint]

There was a long history of ties between the U.S. government, and Timothy McVeigh, via the U.S. military.

We should have attacked ourselves.

Which is where this kind of logic, parsing of words, and the meaning of "connections" vs "operations," ad naseum gets exposed.

Of course the administration didn't put the AQ--Hussein up front and center, but it was definitely part of the repretoire to convince ordinary Americans that the invasion was absolutely necessary.

Again, looking at the big picture like WMDs, it turned out that the administration either A. Manipulated faulty evidence to begin with, or B. Was willing to mislead the American people to make a case to go to war.

If only a tenuous connection between Al-Queda and [insert random nation-state] here, we might as well invaded half the globe, starting with Saudi Arabia and the Sudan...and countless other nations.

The administration communicated a body of information which at worst, maybe construed as lying, at best served to manipulate and mislead the American public to supporting a war based for false reasons.

For the record *one more time* I supported the invasion. Wholeheartedly. Then I realized the sham and smoke and mirrors which it was based on.

 

[blackadder]

If only a tenuous connection between Al-Queda and [insert random nation-state] here, we might as well invaded half the globe, starting with Saudi Arabia and the Sudan...and countless other nations.

Indeed.

We might have invaded ourselves because we have links to Bin Laden. I mean, we flew his family out of the US on 9/12, right?

Bin Laden was once on our payroll right? Isn't that ironclad evidence that he is a CIA operative?

And now he is in Pakistan, so he must be there with Mushareff's blessing right? So Mushareff is linked to Al Queda also...

 

[V Chip]

Rumsfeld and his boss did what the weaklings of the first Administration could not do - remove a maniacal dictator from power.
You want to know who did a bad job? The liberals of moveon and Dean supporters and sheehan types in collusion with the AP and other mainstream press. Those are the people with American blood on their hands. Energizing foreign terrorists with shoddy journalism and communist inflitrated demonstrations should be puinishable by death.

 

[Mr. Littlejeans]

Indeed.

We might have invaded ourselves because we have links to Bin Laden. I mean, we flew his family out of the US on 9/12, right?

Bin Laden was once on our payroll right? Isn't that ironclad evidence that he is a CIA operative?

And now he is in Pakistan, so he must be there with Mushareff's blessing right? So Mushareff is linked to Al Queda also...

Stop Adder, you're thinking too logically. It's un-patriotic.

 

[DadsDream]

"Saddam became too unpredictable. He sealed his fate when he launched missiles at Tel Aviv in the first Gulf War. For some reason, people seem to forget or gloss that over."

which DadsDream says was a response to:

"Which just goes to show how screwed up the area is.
Syria was no friend of Saddam."


Is there some way of interpreting "he sealed his fate" that I'm missing?

Again, it was a direct response to the poster named "Bulldawg."

You're not "Bulldawg."

 

[Mr. Littlejeans]

Again, it was a direct response to the poster named "Bulldawg."

You're not "Bulldawg."

/non-sequitur OFF

 

[champ76]

Indeterminate "links" are not the same as collaboration against the United States. We have "links" with very shady characters all over the globe. That's how we keep tabs on them.

True, true, true. Links are not collaboration, but when there are links, are you allowed to suspect collaboration? And when you have been at war with a country, when the cease fire with that country has been violated numerous times, when resolution after resolution of the UN Security Council directed to that country is ignored, when you have "slam dunk" evidence of wmd's, when you are aware of links between that country and terrorist organizations, when the leader of the country with whom you have been at war is irrational and unpredictable, when you have been attacked and your primary goal is to prevent future, more horrific attacks, when you are hopeful that a stable, democratic country in the midst of the Middle East cauldron and replacement of the irrational, unpredictable leader just might lead to a more stable region, are you not allowed to make your case to go back to war with that country? Are you not allowed to make the case without being called a liar or scoundrel or BushHitler? It's perfectly fine to go back and second guess, especially in light of additional intelligence. But why must we ascribe evil, devious motives to everything the administration did? And why must people who happen to agree with the decision at the time be labeled as blind ignorant followers?

 

[Shawn]

Again, it was a direct response to the poster named "Bulldawg."

You're not "Bulldawg."

You might be selling, but nobody's buying.

 

[blackadder]

True, true, true. Links are not collaboration, but when there are links, are you allowed to suspect collaboration? And when you have been at war with a country, when the cease fire with that country has been violated numerous times, when resolution after resolution of the UN Security Council directed to that country is ignored, when you have "slam dunk" evidence of wmd's, when you are aware of links between that country and terrorist organizations, when the leader of the country with whom you have been at war is irrational and unpredictable, when you have been attacked and your primary goal is to prevent future, more horrific attacks, when you are hopeful that a stable, democratic country in the midst of the Middle East cauldron and replacement of the irrational, unpredictable leader just might lead to a more stable region, are you not allowed to make your case to go back to war with that country? Are you not allowed to make the case without being called a liar or scoundrel or BushHitler? It's perfectly fine to go back and second guess, especially in light of additional intelligence. But why must we ascribe evil, devious motives to everything the administration did? And why must people who happen to agree with the decision at the time be labeled as blind ignorant followers?

For me and many I know it's not second guessing.

We were right the first time and our position and analysis has not changed an iota since 2001, or even wavered in that time.

The idea that you paint of dutiful public servants simpy erring on the side of caution with imperfect information just doesn't add up. There is too much eveidence to the contrary of a decision that was under consideration PRIOR to 9/11 for reasons that go beyond protecting the United States from terrorism.

Too many lies told, too may bogus threats concocted out of thin air. Too much effort to create fanatastic claims of threats for there to actually be a real, credible threat of any type underneath all that.

And too many dissenting opinions ignored or silenced rather than taken on and openly debunked.

Saddam even would have accepted exile in the end. It was not a delaying tactic, it was down to the terms of his departure.

So, it wasn't about removing Saddam, it was about long term presence in Iraq on our terms, which we have numerous lengthy threads about in the archives. Simple exile followed by elections would not have allowed us to enter the country and be there today in an "enduring" fashion.

 

[Rugger]

Dads

Why would the article only focus on one means of military capability? I would guess that there may have been a tactical link, but was there really a stratigic link? Why would the report not focus on all three and only pick the middle to focus on?