- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Misinformation. Most thought Saddam had some left over wmds, not that he was growing and gathering as Bush claimed. And Atta did not train in Iraq.
German intelligence officials say they have evidence that the suspected ringleader of the 11 September terrorist attacks trained in Afghanistan in 1999 and 2000, according to a US newspaper report.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Atta 'trained in Afghanistan'
The Habbush letter, or Habbush memo, is a handwritten message dated July 1, 2001, which appeared to show a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq's Saddam Hussein government. It purports to be a direct communication between the head of Iraqi Intelligence, General Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, to Saddam Hussein, outlining mission training which Mohammed Atta, one of the organizers of the September 11 attacks, supposedly received in Iraq. The letter also claims that Hussein accepted a shipment from Niger, an apparent reference to an alleged uranium acquisition attempt that U.S. President George W. Bush cited in his January 2003 State of the Union address.
The letter has been widely considered a fabrication since it was first made public in December 2003. In 2008 journalist Ron Suskind claimed that the White House ordered the CIA to create the forgery. Two of Suskind's sources denied having knowledge of anyone in their chain of command ordering the forging the letter[1]. Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi alleged that the Pentagon was behind the forgery. The controversy that erupted as a result of Suskind's allegations has so far led to an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee.[2]
(snip)
Doubts
Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff spoke with current and former US officials, including an Iraqi document expert who was at that time reviewing thousands of Operation Iraqi Freedom documents, all of whom deemed the letter a probable fabrication.[9] "The problem with this, say U.S. law enforcement officials, is that the FBI has compiled a highly detailed time line for Atta's movements throughout the spring and summer of 2001 based on a mountain of documentary evidence, including airline records, ATM withdrawals and hotel receipts. Those records show Atta crisscrossing the United States during this period—making only one overseas trip, an 11-day visit to Spain that didn't begin until six days after the date of the Iraqi memo."
Isikoff continued: "Ironically, even the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi, which has been vocal in claiming ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, was dismissive of the new Telegraph story. 'The memo is clearly nonsense,' an INC spokesman told Newsweek."
Habbush letter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for Kay:
On 23 January 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties." In a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kay criticized the pre-war WMD intelligence and the agencies that produced it, saying "It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing." [1] Sometime earlier, CIA director George Tenet had asked David Kay to delay his departure: "If you resign now, it will appear that we don't know what we're doing. That the wheels are coming off."[1]
Iraq Survey Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for your list. Saddam had been neutered for years. He was not a treat at the time of the invasion. Nor was he doing anything that would justify the cost.
You mean "Slam Dunk" Tenet? So let me see if I have this straight, your sources are accurate but anything that is contrary is false?
You can continue to believe what you want but for some reason cannot explain what Saddam Hussein did with the BILLIONS he got from the Oil for Food Program
You have to use accurate sources. You didn't link yours, so I can say what source you're using. But, I did link mine.
As for Tenet's comment, remember, it wasn't that Saddam had wmds that was a slam dunk. Even Bush knew the evidence wasn't there (if we take the entire conversation), but that it was a slam dunk that it would work as a rationale. And it did work. People caught the fever and went right over the cliff with Bush.
Saddam wanted power. he had that. Money gives you power. Nor does anyone I know of think Saddam was pouring is OFF money into wmds or anything of the kind. He lived quite well in a country suffering and crumbling under sanctions. You leap to a conclusion not supported by evidence, again.
You have to use accurate sources. You didn't link yours, so I can say what source you're using. But, I did link mine.
As for Tenet's comment, remember, it wasn't that Saddam had wmds that was a slam dunk. Even Bush knew the evidence wasn't there (if we take the entire conversation), but that it was a slam dunk that it would work as a rationale. And it did work. People caught the fever and went right over the cliff with Bush.
Saddam wanted power. he had that. Money gives you power. Nor does anyone I know of think Saddam was pouring is OFF money into wmds or anything of the kind. He lived quite well in a country suffering and crumbling under sanctions. You leap to a conclusion not supported by evidence, again.
Saddam ran a secular dictatorship. OBL believes in a theocratic regime based on shariah law. It's not hard to understand why OBL wanted Saddam out.Many overestimate how much democracy matters to OBL (who wanted Saddam out as much as we did) and his side.
And overestimate just how much freedom and improvement the Iraq people are actually seeing.
Saddam ran a secular dictatorship. OBL believes in a theocratic regime based on shariah law. It's not hard to understand why OBL wanted Saddam out.
The degree of freedom is irrelevant to the point at hand. The point is that there is now a constitution and elections and man made law all of which OBL despises. Merry Christmas, OBL. Just what you always wanted.
But he despised Saddam as well. Nothing different here. The form of the Iraqi government was not a major concern with him, or anything that would change what he wanted. It's still a Christmas gift in terms of his goals. In terms of his goals, what you see as a victory is something that really is irrelevant.
I am really glad you have nothing to do with the security of my family or anyone else. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden want you dead. Saddam Hussein had the money and the location to do the most damage. He was a great partner with Bin Laden.
Wow, good to pull up a saying as if it meant something. Care to show they worked together? No one else has been able to show that. If you're going to claim they worked together, I think you should show the evidence that Bush never could.
Who said they worked together? I said they had the same goals. What part of the enemy of my enemy is my friend do you not understand. Both had a hatred for Israel and the United States. Saddam Hussein paid money to suicide bomber families for murdering Israelis. Abu Zarqawi came to Iraq from Afghanistan and was actually killed their by our military.
You are just like the Obama Administration, when you find a smoking gun you will claim it was caused by Global warming.
So says you. OBL says otherwise.The form of the Iraqi government was not a major concern with him, or anything that would change what he wanted.
Slow up there, Zyph.
According to someone who was there, candidate Bush was saying "IRAQ!" two years before 9/11.
Oh, but there's more...
Again, according to someone who was there, President Bush was saying "IRAQ!" at his very first security meeting, well before 9/11
So, y'know, I'm just sayin'...
Yes, wonderful job refuting the end statement of my sentence while completely disregarding context. :roll: Amazing job. What I said:
"First, Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 before doing anything with Iraq so its not like he woke up the night after and said "IRAQ!""
What you countered
"so its not like he woke up the night after and said "IRAQ!"
See, countering the second part without taking it in context is kind of pointless. He didn't wake up and go "IRAQ" and we invaded it.
Unless you have some link showing me how we invaded Iraq 2 years earlier than we actually did.
I'd love to see that link.
Otherwise, no, Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 before jumping up invading Iraq.
Now you have gone and "done it" confused Glinda with facts. Those with BDS hate that and prefer instead to live in their little world of conspiracy and misery.
there is no evidence that Bush started talking about invading Iraq after taking office but that won't change the minds of those who always want to divert from the current situation in this country to the past. It is easier placing blame on the past than accepting the failures of the present.
Conservative, you should probably check facts before you comment on someone else.
I did not say that Bush didn't start TALKING about it, I said he didn't DO it. There is evidence that at the very least it was possible Bush had considered it prior to being elected and after being elected. That said, the sources are questionable in regards to motives and even more without full context of the situation at the time they were stated they're rather hollow quotes. However, I've made no comment as to whether or not Bush had desires or statements of wishing to go into Iraq. I'm only stating that its not like Bush invaded Iraq immedietely following 9/11.
And you're right. OBL did not think it would be Iraq. He wanted it to be Afghanistan.
Now, as for iraq and Afghanistan, Afghanistan made since. You can not find anywhere where I opposed Bush in Afghanistan.
Obama is right to focus there. But, no I don't support the surge there. It is the same problem of trying to nation build instead of practically addressing the problems.
I think you misunderstand his job. He criticized Clinton for a reason. He did not make command decisions, but we did know such an attack was coming.
but that merely allowing agencies to share information might well have.
He was an active agent at the time. He could not give his name. He later resigned because he felt so strongly about this and has spoken publicly repeatedly.
I don't follow your point. Was Scheuer given the power to make decisions one who to kill? Largely you don't seem to understand the role analysts and decision makers.
OBL wanted to wage war with us and remove us from Islamic lands.
He needed to get us to a place where he could hurt us.
Saddam would have preferred we left him alone.
No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone.
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.
The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.
The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
Yes, wonderful job refuting the end statement of my sentence while completely disregarding context. :roll: Amazing job. What I said:
"First, Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 before doing anything with Iraq so its not like he woke up the night after and said "IRAQ!""
See, countering the second part without taking it in context is kind of pointless. He didn't wake up and go "IRAQ" and we invaded it.
Unless you have some link showing me how we invaded Iraq 2 years earlier than we actually did. I'd love to see that link.
Otherwise, no, Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 before jumping up invading Iraq.
And I gave multiple sources that say you're wrong; Bush was "doing something" about Iraq well before 9/11.
A. You're spitting all over your computer screen.
B. I never said anything about "invading" – that's your strawman. Please reread my comments and note that the word isn't there.
:rofl Trying to semanticize your way out of it, eh?
Sincerely, though, dude... exceedingly pathetic attempt. You're usually better than this.
Why wouldn't a leader not talk about or potentially plan an action against a country that violated the cease fire agreement after the Gulf War and kept shooting at our planes in the no fly zone, had WMD using them on his own people?
It does appear that there are a lot of naive people here that helped get us into the problem in the first place.
Read the quotes in post #48.
True. Reagan putting Saddam in power was the start. Then Rummy and Bush I gave Saddam loans, military intelligence, and weapons (including WMD). Then Cheney insisted that it was wise to "start a small war" and pinhead Dubya agreed.
:roll:
And I gave multiple sources that say you're wrong; Bush was "doing something" about Iraq well before 9/11.
A. You're spitting all over your computer screen.
B. I never said anything about "invading" – that's your strawman. Please reread my comments and note that the word isn't there.
:rofl Trying to semanticize your way out of it, eh?
Sincerely, though, dude... exceedingly pathetic attempt. You're usually better than this.
Read the quotes in post #48.
True. Reagan putting Saddam in power was the start. Then Rummy and Bush I gave Saddam loans, military intelligence, and weapons (including WMD). Then Cheney insisted that it was wise to "start a small war" and pinhead Dubya agreed.
:roll:
Read the quotes in post #48.
True. Reagan putting Saddam in power was the start. Then Rummy and Bush I gave Saddam loans, military intelligence, and weapons (including WMD). Then Cheney insisted that it was wise to "start a small war" and pinhead Dubya agreed.
:roll:
See: Two Years Before 9/11, Bush was Already Talking About Attacking IraqTwo Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer
Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade�.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."
That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush's unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters - well before he became president.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?