A question of those who don't support the war in Iraq:

[Kelzie]

Your whole premise is flawed. It is a false analogy, never have the claims that Iraq and AlQaeda had an opperational relationship been debunked and they are about to be proven true.

The question ladies and gentlemen is that if this information is true and the documents proving the operational relationships between AlQaeda and Iraq are released as they seem to be, will you change your opinion now, that is not to say that your opinion was wrong then, but rather given this new information will you admit that the war was justified, that you were wrong, and that the President and all of us here on this website who have made these claims were right?

Yes they have. And these are different claims.

 

[Conflict]

Our president, much like you... Trajan, is an entity that is merely terrorized by fact.

You tend to deal more with faith and religion. You have faith in Bush. You have belief in Bush. You basically suck his ass.



Now did you have anything substantive (meaning coming from an arbitrational body) or is it your intent to only post the comments (as you usually do) of the PNAC think tank?

 

[Conflict]

Your whole premise is flawed. It is a false analogy, never have the claims that Iraq and AlQaeda had an opperational relationship been debunked and they are about to be proven true.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice. Evidence. Truth. Arbitration. The American way? You have issues with these concepts. I know you do.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Once it hits the real media it will deserve some attention. But I have a feeling that only right-wing underground extremists will run a story on it.

So if the LA Times hadn't run it's story on Clinton's "Troopergate" scandal (God! He had so many one needs a computer to keep track of them, I think that's the right one), it wasn't important, even though the National Enquirer ran the story first?

Now, I know it's a sad commentary on the journalistic ethics of the left that the National Enquirer is ever more reliable than the LA Times or New York Slimes, but that does seem to be the case lately.

Now, I'm going to wait for this tale of Saddam's involvement with terrorist to gel before getting excited, though there's no doubt whatsoever that Saddam was involved with terrorism. He both harbored Abu Nidal, and he paid PLO suicide bomber's families a bounty for their evil work.

But to claim that only certain outlets have a monopoly on truth is dangerous. No outlets are reliable.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I can't vote in the poll, though.

Positive documented evidence of significant Iraq influence on terrorism directed at the United States would have led me to support taking him out at the time, certainly.

Release of those documents now won't change my opinion, and the choices on this poll show it is yet another amateurish push-poll seeking to elicit specific responses.

I'll support the war because we're stuck. Once we invaded, we took responsibility for the outcome. It's that simple. But to say "I already support the war" doesn't leave me the caveat that I opposed it because the reasons provided for it were inadequate, manipulative, some were obviously false, none were clearly the real reason, and it usurped Congress's duty to declare war as required by the Constitution, a duty which the losers in the Congress gladly abdicated.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes they have. And these are different claims.

No they haven't, just how in the hell can you say that the claims that Saddam and AlQaeda had an operational relationship when those claims are on the brink of being verified beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Your logic is befuddling to me it's really quite a laughable attempt to keep you from having to admit that Bush was right and you were wrong.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It's well known common knowledge that Hussein supported thousands of terrorists. Now the US is protecting thousands of the same folks.

Doesn't change a single thing.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

We on the right have been making the case that Saddam and AlQaeda had an operational relationship since day one, for our adamant stead fast resolve on this manner we have been called everything from liers to propogandists and far far worse, and now when we are about to be vindicated in our assertions once and for all you people change your story once again . . . and we're the ones who are partisan, and we're the ones who have been towing the party line? Give me a fuc/king break.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It's well known common knowledge that Hussein supported thousands of terrorists. Now the US is protecting thousands of the same folks.

Doesn't change a single thing.

Well known common knowledge??? Well that's news to me the left has been claiming the exact opposite for the last three years.

Just why exactly are you against the war again, what's your story this time?

And what terrorists are the US now protecting what the hell are you talking about?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

We on the right have been making the case that Saddam and AlQaeda had an operational relationship since day one, for our adamant stead fast resolve on this manner we have been called everything from liers to propogandists and far far worse, and now when we are about to be vindicated in our assertions once and for all you people change your story once again . . . and we're the ones who are partisan, and we're the ones who have been towing the party line? Give me a fuc/king break.

Not all Islamists are aQ.
Further, not every breathless report that Mr. Hayes brings us is credible, verified, verifiable, accurate or even just plain, old not-false.
That he's making a fuss about somethings he can't show us is hardly a moving plea.

Personally, I'd love it so hard if I was utterly wrong about the Bush Admin. I'd sleep easier at night and be less concerned about America's future. Much rather be wrong than be in the precarious situiation we're in now.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Well known common knowledge???

Yes. That's what I said. I know that I personally have spent post after post arguing the case.
Oddly enough, the bulk of Iraq's terrorist activities were drected against Iran. Go figure. I'm sure you're familiar with this as it's in many of the reports re Iraq's terrorist activities. Not the breathless ones like you find written in Mr Hayes hand, but in the more sober and level-headed ones produced by the INR, CRS, etc.

Well that's news to me the left has been claiming the exact opposite for the last three years.

"The Left" is hardly my concern. However, I suspect that this is more of straw man than the result of your own careful examination of what's been being said. Not that there aren't folks who say everything ...

Just why exactly are you against the war again, what's your story this time?

My story has remained unchanged. Perhaps you're just developing the ability to appreciate it on deper levels, and to you it seems like layers of fresh revelations

And what terrorists are the US now protecting what the hell are you talking about?

Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran in particular, but they're not alone.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Not all Islamists are aQ.
Further, not every breathless report that Mr. Hayes brings us is credible, verified, verifiable, accurate or even just plain, old not-false.
That he's making a fuss about somethings he can't show us is hardly a moving plea.

Personally, I'd love it so hard if I was utterly wrong about the Bush Admin. I'd sleep easier at night and be less concerned about America's future. Much rather be wrong than be in the precarious situiation we're in now.

Well we'll see then because Hayes says he's got a 11 different sources and hopes that the classified documents that will prove his assertion will be released within two weeks, I'm going to be keeping a sharp on on this one, it looks like this could mean vindication for the Bush administration, but as I see from these responses here this still won't change the minds of the Bush haters and ravidly anti-war crowd who've been screaming from the rafters that AlQaeda and Iraq didn't have any connections for the last three years.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes. That's what I said. I know that I personally have spent post after post arguing the case.
Oddly enough, the bulk of Iraq's terrorist activities were drected against Iran. Go figure. I'm sure you're familiar with this as it's in many of the reports re Iraq's terrorist activities. Not the breathless ones like you find written in Mr Hayes hand, but in the more sober and level-headed ones produced by the INR, CRS, etc.

Like I said 11 separate sources have confirmed this and the documents proving the assertion should be released in a week but like I said in my poll questions I said if the story is proven true.

"The Left" is hardly my concern. However, I suspect that this is more of straw man than the result of your own careful examination of what's been being said. Not that there aren't folks who say everything ...

Just off of the first page of a google search on the subject:

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)
The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin
Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html - Similar pages

No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says ...
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred
... Transcript: 9/11 Commission Hearings for June 16, 2004 (FDCH E-Media, ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html - Similar pages
[ More results from www.washingtonpost.com ]


CNN.com - 9/11 panel: Al Qaeda planned to hijack 10 planes - Jun ...
... and he said Iraq's denials of ties to al Qaeda "are simply not credible." ...
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also ...
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/ - 59k - Cached - Similar pages

9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida - US Security ...
9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida. Commission opens final ...
It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/ - 60k - Jan 8, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

Andrew C. McCarthy on 9/11 Commission & Iraq & al Qaeda on ...
Iraq & al Qaeda The 9/11 Commission raises more questions than it answers. ...
There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred ...
www.nationalreview.com/ mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp - 47k - Jan 8, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to
receive ... To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an ...
www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm - 73k - Cached - Similar pages

9/11 Commission Asks Cheney for Reports
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also ... was not
inconsistent with what we've been saying" about the ties between Al Qaeda ...
www.yuricareport.com/911/ CommissionAsksCheneyForReports.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Bush and Cheney Talk Strongly of Qaeda Links With Hussein
That is the finding of this commission. The war against Al Qaeda is not the war in
... "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also ...
www.yuricareport.com/911/ BushCheneyOnQaedaLinksWithHussein.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

FAIR ACTION ALERT:
... that the September 11 commission now says that Iraq did not have with Al Qaeda,
... The report also indicated that the supposed meeting between 9/11 ...
www.fair.org/activism/fox-commission.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran in particular, but they're not alone.

And who the hell is he and when was he engaged in terrorism against the U.S., are interests, or our allies? And when have we been protecting him?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Like I said 11 separate sources have confirmed this...

What exactly and specifically has been confirmed?

... and the documents proving the assertion ...

What exactly and specifically is the assertion?

... should be released in a week but like I said in my poll questions I said if the story is proven true.

Hussein supported terrorism and terrorists. This is already known and established.

And who the hell is he and when was he engaged in terrorism against the U.S., are interests, or our allies? And when have we been protecting him?

It's a group not a he.

Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran
(The Organization of Crusaders of the Iranian People)

 

[Simon W. Moon]

http://www.hillnews.com/news/040203/terrorist.aspx
Iran ‘terrorist’ group finds support on Hill

April, 3rd, 2003 (2003-04-03)
By Sam Dealey​

[Mojahedin-e Kalq, MeK,]...Iranian dissidents backed by Saddam Hussein.[National Council of Resistance of Iran, NCRI, their political arm]

“They’re a combatant.” “They’re being targeted. Targeting data is being provided to the Pentagon. We believe [MeK] are undertaking some of the action in the south [of Iraq] where enemy combatants have disguised themselves as civilians.” [--Greg Sullivan, State Dept., Near East Affairs]

[Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO):]“If that’s occurred, if they have done this, they have certainly ruined whatever modicum of support they have here, at least from me,” he said. “If these reports are accurate, that’s the end of it for me.”
“...received information of a different nature entirely from people who are closer to the scene than the State Department,” [Tancredo later said.]
[Other than from “our government,” Tancredo] would not identify the source or content... ...State Department flatly dismissed Tancredo’s claims.

[Reuters:]...U.S. forces...destroyed [2 MeK Iraqi] bases... [RFE/RL:]...Masud Rajavi...relocated MEK headquarters to...residence of General Ali Hassan al-Majid [“Chemical Ali”] [Genl. helped]...suppress ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq. [ As did the MeK ]

Since 1995, [MeK] routinely classified...terrorist organization [per State Dept]. ...believed responsible for...[killing] Americans...participated in the 1979 U.S. Embassy seizure...
[White House says group is] evidence of Hussein’s support for international terrorism. [UK & EU designate MeK]...terrorist organization.

[Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) on Congresscritters supporting MeK:]“I don’t question their patriotism or their loyalty to the United States. But on this issue, they just aren’t looking at the facts.”

...[The MeK’s DC representatives] “conceal [the groups' natures with]...an anti-Iranian message. In fairness to those on the Hill, I don’t think they have any idea who these people are.” [--Greg Sullivan, State Dept., Near East Affairs]
​

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

http://www.hillnews.com/news/040203/terrorist.aspx
Iran ‘terrorist’ group finds support on Hill

April, 3rd, 2003 (2003-04-03)
By Sam Dealey​

[Mojahedin-e Kalq, MeK,]...Iranian dissidents backed by Saddam Hussein.[National Council of Resistance of Iran, NCRI, their political arm]

“They’re a combatant.” “They’re being targeted. Targeting data is being provided to the Pentagon. We believe [MeK] are undertaking some of the action in the south [of Iraq] where enemy combatants have disguised themselves as civilians.” [--Greg Sullivan, State Dept., Near East Affairs]

[Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO):]“If that’s occurred, if they have done this, they have certainly ruined whatever modicum of support they have here, at least from me,” he said. “If these reports are accurate, that’s the end of it for me.”
“...received information of a different nature entirely from people who are closer to the scene than the State Department,” [Tancredo later said.]
[Other than from “our government,” Tancredo] would not identify the source or content... ...State Department flatly dismissed Tancredo’s claims.

[Reuters:]...U.S. forces...destroyed [2 MeK Iraqi] bases... [RFE/RL:]...Masud Rajavi...relocated MEK headquarters to...residence of General Ali Hassan al-Majid [“Chemical Ali”] [Genl. helped]...suppress ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq. [ As did the MeK ]

Since 1995, [MeK] routinely classified...terrorist organization [per State Dept]. ...believed responsible for...[killing] Americans...participated in the 1979 U.S. Embassy seizure...
[White House says group is] evidence of Hussein’s support for international terrorism. [UK & EU designate MeK]...terrorist organization.

[Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) on Congresscritters supporting MeK:]“I don’t question their patriotism or their loyalty to the United States. But on this issue, they just aren’t looking at the facts.”

...[The MeK’s DC representatives] “conceal [the groups' natures with]...an anti-Iranian message. In fairness to those on the Hill, I don’t think they have any idea who these people are.” [--Greg Sullivan, State Dept., Near East Affairs]
​

First off that says that the State Department was targeting him, and one Republicans voice of opposition to the State Department's policy is not indicative of official U.S. policy, in fact from what I can gather is that the article says that the official policy of the State Department is that we're targeting him and his group, so what's your point?

Conversly if the Senator's comments are true and this group is not targeting U.S. interests I would happen to agree with his assessment that we should support any organization which is opposed to Cleric rule in Iran.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What exactly and specifically has been confirmed?

This:

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

What exactly and specifically is the assertion?

SEE ABOVE

Hussein supported terrorism and terrorists. This is already known and established.

Not according to most media outlets that claim there was no Iraqi-AlQaeda collaborative relations.

It's a group not a he.

Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran

Your article which I responded to above said that the State Department is actively targeting this organization in coordination with the Pentagon.


(The Organization of Crusaders of the Iranian People)

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Just off of the first page of a google search on the subject:

Just to repeat the repeated in hope of effect, not all Islamists are aQ.
The items you cite all reference aQ. Mr. Hayes' article does not say that Hussein was training aQ. Therefore there is no conflict to be resolved.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

First off that says that the State Department was targeting him ...

No, it doesn't. Also the MeK are a group, not a him.

... and one Republicans voice of opposition to the State Department's policy is not indicative of official U.S. policy ...

I'm not sure of who said it was indicative of such.

... in fact from what I can gather is that the article says that the official policy of the State Department is that we're targeting him and his group, so what's your point?

Actually, it says that the DoD was targeting them because the MeK were actively engaging Coalition forces.
The MeK Fought on Hussein's side during the recent invasion. That's the point.
They've assassinated Americans, cheered on the hostage taking during the Irnaian Revolution, etc.

Conversly if the Senator's comments are true and this group is not targeting U.S. interests I would happen to agree with his assessment that we should support any organization which is opposed to Cleric rule in Iran.

Even though the group has no realistic chance of being a good use of the support?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Just to repeat the repeated in hope of effect, not all Islamists are aQ.
The items you cite all reference aQ. Mr. Hayes' article does not say that Hussein was training aQ. Therefore there is no conflict to be resolved.

Come on Simon "the base" is a loose network of many non-affiliated terrorist organizations its mainly the public face, organizational, and fund raising side of the broader Islamic terrorist network, AlQaeda has its fingers in a lot of honey pots. What is it going to take, a picture of Saddam Hussein and O.B.L. shaking hands for you to understand what was going on in post-war Iraq?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Hussein supported terrorism and terrorists. This is already known and established.

Not according to most media outlets that claim there was no Iraqi-AlQaeda collaborative relations.

Again, remember that not all terrorists are aQ, nor are aQ all terrorists.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No, it doesn't. Also the MeK are a group, not a him.

I'm not sure of who said it was indicative of such.

Actually, it says that the DoD was targeting them because the MeK were actively engaging Coalition forces.
The MeK Fought on Hussein's side during the recent invasion. That's the point.

That's the whole point it says that the DOD is actively targeting them in coordination with the Pentagon and military personnel on the ground, case closed we don't support them.

They've assassinated Americans, cheered on the hostage taking during the Irnaian Revolution, etc.

Even though the group has no realistic chance of being a good use of the support?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Again, remember that not all terrorists are aQ, nor are aQ all terrorists.

You may have missed this one it was on the bottom of the page and I think it got cut off:

Come on Simon "the base" is a loose network of many non-affiliated terrorist organizations its mainly the public face, organizational, and fund raising side of the broader Islamic terrorist network, AlQaeda has its fingers in a lot of honey pots just because an organization doesn't state flat out: "hay we work for O.B.L." doesn't mean that they are not associated with and work for AlQaeda. What is it going to take, a picture of Saddam Hussein and O.B.L. shaking hands for you to understand what was going on in post-war Iraq?

 

[alphieb]

Steven Hayes a journalist for the Weekly Standard says he has obtained information from 11 separate sources, that say there exists classified documents proving that Saddam Hussein recruited and trained thousands of Radical Islamic radicals within Iraq at Salman Pak. He is pushing for these documents to be released and he says that he has made some in roads and hopes that these documents are released within two weeks.

If the documents are released and if they do infact prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was an operational relationship between Saddam and AlQaeda (as many of us evil naive Conservatives have claimed this whole time) will it change your opinion of the war in Iraq?

You can read more about this breaking story here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

It will absolutely change my mind, but why has this not been in the media yet? That makes me a little skeptical. Especially, after Bush just claimed the war was due to faulty intelligence.

 

[MSgt]

It will absolutely change my mind, but why has this not been in the media yet? That makes me a little skeptical. Especially, after Bush just claimed the war was due to faulty intelligence.

There is a lot that hasn't been released to the public for various reasons. Some information will hurt current efforts in the Middle East.