Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida (2 Viewers)

[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?

 

[DadsDream]

You might be selling, but nobody's buying.

I'm not "selling" anything.

I'm offering an opinion. You either consider it or you don't.

 

[RebSaint]

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?

There must be some rational explanation for the continuing to defend this administration. I think it has everything to do with blind partisanship more than anything else.

As to your first claim, there's strong, STRONG evidence that it wasn't simply just a failure of intelligence. One. More. Time. It was a manipulation of intelligence to concoct a case to go to war based on a completely false premise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/22/washington/22intel.html
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2004/12/cia_retaliation.html

Intelligence which contradicted the administration's case was IGNORED. Evil? No. Devious? Absolutely. Dishonest? Absolutely. Disgusting? I think so.

Put simply, if you believe that this administration was victimized by simply bad intelligence, your just simply ignoring facts. Officials in the admininstration started talking about taking out Hussein long before 9-11, which common sense tells me there was a degree at least ignoring some of the intelligence which contradicted the "slam dunk" case made to the American people to invade in the first place. Sorry, you can continue believe that it was as simple as an intellegence failure. It wasn't.

To me, it's painfully obvious who continues to believe the administration DIDN'T pull the wool over anybody's eyes, and that they acted as honestly as possible here--it's painfully clear that only those most strident partisans continue to defend the administration's behavior. Sorry, but if the shoe fits.........which is why blind partisanship from any source is the scourge of modern politics.

 

[DadsDream]

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?

The article picks only snippets of a report which hasn't been published yet.

Why did the article headline say "no link" when the quote in the story itself clearly says "no operational link"?

The report may very well address all three aspects, but we won't know until the report itself is published tomorrow.

If I had to hazard a guess, it might address the operational level because we are in "Operation Iraqi Freedom" at the operational level so the report addressed operational level concerns.

 

[champ76]

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.

I accept that, except for that "right" thing.

 

[BullDawg]

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

I could be wrong, but I believe it has been shown that we never had bin Laden on the payroll, directly or otherwise.

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

 

[varanook]

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.

No mention of Hitler?

 

[Mr. Littlejeans]

[/QUOTE]But why must we ascribe evil, devious motives to everything the administration did?"[/QUOTE]

Because when you put American lives in danger by cooking intelligence, the shoe fits

[/QUOTE]And why must people who happen to agree with the decision at the time be labeled as blind ignorant followers?[/QUOTE]

Only if they still to this day are unable or unwilling to face reality. In 2001 they didn't know any better, and had a legitimate (almost) argument that we should trust the Administration to be telling us the truth

 

[Mr. Littlejeans]

"You might be selling, but nobody's buying."

I'm not "selling" anything.

I'm offering an opinion. You either consider it or you don't.

Dad's Dream-
Let me help you with this. The poster was not assuming you were selling anything. He was using figurative language, a metaphor, I think. This may clear it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

I think what he meant was, you are offering an opinion, but he thinks you know in your heart it defies common sense, so you use the tactic of mincing words.
I don't think anyone else on the board thought you were actually "selling" something, but thanks for the clarification anyway.
But this kind of parsing of words makes your point of view all the more suspect.

 

[DadsDream]

I think what he meant was...

Shawn's a big boy.

Why don't you try letting him speak for himself?

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I could be wrong, but I believe it has been shown that we never had bin Laden on the payroll, directly or otherwise.

Still in the air and probably always will be. You have some ex-CIA guys who says he was and some that says he wasn't.

I don't know about anyones payroll but I know from my time doing reports on the region for briefings he was our contact into Afghanistan during the war against the Soviets and arranged a lot of our weapons shipments in. It's unlikely we were paying him anything however as he has never needed money.

BTW, he wasn't a terrorist back then so there really was no reason for America to not work with him. AQ didn't even exist back then.