Why We Fight

[Stinger]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]9/11 Commish Bob Kerrey: News Docs Show Saddam a Threat[/FONT]



A bombshell Iraqi intelligence document detailing a 1995 pact between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to conduct "joint operations" against the U.S. proves that Saddam Hussein "would collaborate with people who would do our country harm," former 9/11 Commission member, Bob Kerrey said Friday.
"This is a very significant set of facts," Kerrey told the New York Sun.
"I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy [of the U.S.] and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm," the Nebraska Democrat explained.



This on top of what the Weekly Standard and ABC News have been reporting, isn't it time to stop the "he lied" rhetoric and come together to fight those who would kill us?

 

[ProudAmerican]

awesome post.

I cant count the number of times ive heard from the left "But the 9-11 commision said he wasnt a threat"

It would be nice if the folks that stated that would read this and be honest enough to say "well, its possible he was a threat and we did the right thing" but I wont hold my breath.

 

[Stinger]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]9/11 Commish Bob Kerrey: News Docs Show Saddam a Threat[/FONT]

Oops, here is the link

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/25/113304.shtml?s=ic

 

[Stinger]

It would be nice if the folks that stated that would read this and be honest enough to say "well, its possible he was a threat and we did the right thing" but I wont hold my breath.

They have far too much invested in our defeat in Iraq.

 

[Hoot]

They have far too much invested in our defeat in Iraq.

Oh brother! A document from 1995! Well, I guess that proves it? ROTFL!

Some of you make me want to run for office, if this is all it takes to convince you and get votes?

Here...I have a document from 1995 that states that republicans are gullible.

I guess that proves it, doesn't it?

Do me a favor...do a search on "Newsmax lies" and try to read the distortions and misrepresentations this "news" organization perpetually makes, and get on a diet of the truth.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Oh brother! A document from 1995! Well, I guess that proves it? ROTFL!

so as long as Saddam only collaborated with Osama in 1995, its ok with you?

everytime the right shows proof the left changes the standard of proof.

Here...I have a document from 1995 that states that republicans are gullible.

does that mean democrats are gullible for accepting the findings of the comission after the war?

 

[Stinger]

Oh brother! A document from 1995! Well, I guess that proves it? ROTFL!

Why does the Saddam document dating 1995 mitigate anything? It was right in the middle of it.

Here...I have a document from 1995 that states that republicans are gullible.

I guess that proves it, doesn't it?

Well your statement disproves nothing. The claim on the left is that Saddam and OBL had no relationship. They did and this is just one more document that proves and it is seems to have convinced Bob Kerry who served on the 9/11 Commission.

Now all you have are pitiful attempts to dismiss it out of hand.

OK we know that they had a relationship in 1995, well when then did it end and what is your proof it did end?

Do me a favor...do a search on "Newsmax lies"

Well then you should have no problem rebutting what they said, have at it else you attempt to claim it is false story are specious.

And BTW there weren't in on the initial pages but when I tried it with New York Times several showed up.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Well then you should have no problem rebutting what they said, have at it else you attempt to claim it is false story are specious.

And BTW there weren't in on the initial pages but when I tried it with New York Times several showed up.

First of all, my understanding of the matter is that burden of proof always falls on someone who is trying to prove the truth of a statement rather than vice versa. Second of all, I searched "1995 Kerrey Saddam" on CNN and the Washington Post but found nada, and when I searched the NYT, although I got five items, none were current.

I searched the Sun's website and found this article.

"The document, which has no official stamps or markers..." This bit was left out of Newsmax. George Bush's service records, anyone?

Dubious at best, I should say. There might be something to it and there might not; I'm inclined to think no.

 

[millsy]

awesome post.

I cant count the number of times ive heard from the left "But the 9-11 commision said he wasnt a threat"

It would be nice if the folks that stated that would read this and be honest enough to say "well, its possible he was a threat and we did the right thing" but I wont hold my breath.

I can't speak for the anyone else on the left, but here's my two cents if you want them. I was against the war in Iraq and for the war in Afghanastan. I don't think that people believe Sadam wasn't a threat. What I believe is that it wasn't worth the cost to remove that threat. The left sometimes allow themselves to be painted into the corner of choosing between a war in Iraq, or saying Sadam was a good guy. It's not that. I do not think he posed NO threat. It's obvious he was at least a serious threat to stability in the middle east. However, I do not believe that 2500 American troops dead, and more to come, countless Iraqis dead, and more to come, and countless dollars invested, and more to come, is a reasonable cost to take out the man.

Sometimes I believe the Left does a very poor job framing their argument. It's not that he was a good guy, it's that there are countless other terrible dictators, and it's not worth the cost.

 

[Mr. D]

Have you seen this Times article? I’d say it corroborates the Downing Street Memo language of, "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

Maybe this relates to: WHY WE FIGHT




Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says

By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: March 27, 2006

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
Skip to next paragraph
Doug Mills/The New York Times

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and President Bush arriving for a White House news conference on Jan. 31, 2003, after a meeting about Iraq that would be summarized in a memorandum by an adviser to Mr. Blair.
The Reach of War
Go to Complete Coverage
Readers
Forum: The Transition in Iraq

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.

Consistent Remarks

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."

On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.

"The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent."

The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

 

[Stinger]

I searched the Sun's website and found this article.

"The document, which has no official stamps or markers..." This bit was left out of Newsmax. George Bush's service records, anyone?

Here is the entire paragraph from the Sun citing ABC News

"Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden."

Dubious at best, I should say. There might be something to it and there might not; I'm inclined to think no.

No not dubious at best. These are documents siezed from his headquarters, I have no reason to believe he was seeding his files with phoney documents and the article only cites the one has not have a stamp on it. We also have the audio tapes which are quite revealing and a host of other documents.

Why is it that your sides seems to accept any statement at all about Bush but nothing when it comes to Saddam, even from his own files?

 

[Stinger]

Have you seen this Times article? I’d say it corroborates the Downing Street Memo language of, "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

Maybe this relates to: WHY WE FIGHT

Don't see that at all and the commissions which have investigate haven't either. It WAS the official policy of the United States that Saddam and his government must be removed. But he had every chance afforded him to avoid that. Did we plan for war before we entered it............well DUH.

On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.

"The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent."

 

[ProudAmerican]

Stinger,

If you will read Tommy Franks book "American Soldier" you will see that you are absolutely correct about the president seeking dimplomacy before war.

The book makes it perfectly clear that war was planned for, HOWEVER, the president always told the general that war was NOT DEFINATE.

The assertion that the president wanted war to avenge his daddy from day one is just another false liberal myth.

This war was not taken lightly by the president, or the men he commanded. And that comes STRAIGHT FROM the leader of CENTCOM.

not some oped piece on the web or in a newspaper.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

For shits sake the 9-11 Commission Report itself proved the links between alqaeda and Saddam Hussein the only people who haven't excepted the links by now are hard core anti-Bush zealots.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

No not dubious at best. These are documents siezed from his headquarters, I have no reason to believe he was seeding his files with phoney documents and the article only cites the one has not have a stamp on it. We also have the audio tapes which are quite revealing and a host of other documents.

Whoa, there. I didn't see where it said in either article that the documents were from Saddam's HQ. Moreover, I think it only cites the one because it's the only one that directly supports the Bush administration's claim. If the others did that too, they'd be detailed or at least mentioned as being corroborating evidence. Yet they are not. As for their authenticity, they could have been planted. Have you watched the audiotapes? What, exactly, do they reveal?

Why is it that your sides seems to accept any statement at all about Bush but nothing when it comes to Saddam, even from his own files?

What do you mean, my side? Look at my profile. I'm in not a few ways rather conservative. I don't "accept any statement about Bush;" I am simply willing to accept criticism of him if it is warranted, and mountains of evidence say that it is. This is one single scrap of paper without so much as a seal of state, and it has gone unreported by newspapers which- alleged bias or not- would certainly have made note of it if it were "the real deal."

I don't trust Newsmax further than I can throw it (and since it's not tangible, that's zilch). I well remember the episode that George Bush's "service records" caused, and I'm not eager for a repeat by either "side." I counter your question with a question: why is it that you are willing to accept any uncorroborated claim of the president's goodness? Accusations of partisanship work both ways.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

I can't speak for the anyone else on the left, but here's my two cents if you want them. I was against the war in Iraq and for the war in Afghanastan. I don't think that people believe Sadam wasn't a threat. What I believe is that it wasn't worth the cost to remove that threat. The left sometimes allow themselves to be painted into the corner of choosing between a war in Iraq, or saying Sadam was a good guy. It's not that. I do not think he posed NO threat. It's obvious he was at least a serious threat to stability in the middle east. However, I do not believe that 2500 American troops dead, and more to come, countless Iraqis dead, and more to come, and countless dollars invested, and more to come, is a reasonable cost to take out the man.

Sometimes I believe the Left does a very poor job framing their argument. It's not that he was a good guy, it's that there are countless other terrible dictators, and it's not worth the cost.

Finally, a good non-partisan argument.

The whole thing is much simpler than what everyone makes it out to be: Is it worth it or not?

 

[Stinger]

I can't speak for the anyone else on the left, but here's my two cents if you want them. I was against the war in Iraq and for the war in Afghanastan. I don't think that people believe Sadam wasn't a threat. What I believe is that it wasn't worth the cost to remove that threat.

Versus the cost of leaving him in power with the sanctions removed and him free to do as he pleased?

The left sometimes allow themselves to be painted into the corner of choosing between a war in Iraq, or saying Sadam was a good guy. It's not that. I do not think he posed NO threat. It's obvious he was at least a serious threat to stability in the middle east.

Yes that was just the least of it.

Here is what the congress said in the legislation authorizing his removal signed by the President.

• • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities. [/FONT]

• • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds. [/FONT]

• • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today. [/FONT]

• • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat. [/FONT]

• • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement. [/FONT]

• • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait. [/FONT]

• • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait. [/FONT]

• • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government. [/FONT]

• • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs. [/FONT]

• • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM. [/FONT]

• • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'. [/FONT]

• • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.
    
    
    [/FONT]

And we find more eveidence every day of his hiding WMD materials and working with and wanting to expand his relationships with terrorist.

However, I do not believe that 2500 American troops dead, and more to come, countless Iraqis dead, and more to come, and countless dollars invested, and more to come, is a reasonable cost to take out the man.

Which would have left him in power at what cost?

Sometimes I believe the Left does a very poor job framing their argument. It's not that he was a good guy, it's that there are countless other terrible dictators, and it's not worth the cost.

I think it's more that the left opposes everything and offers nothing as an alternative.

You say we should have left the Iraqi's alone. Well where do you think OBL would have gone after we ran him out of Afghanistan. Do you think he would have stayed in the hell of Pakistan or gone to Iraq where Saddam by all the evidence was more than willing to support him? Then what?

With the sanctions lifted the inspections over, what do you think Saddam would have been up to?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And then there's these. Where was this shot? In Afghanistan? Nope this picture was shot in Iraq.








http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/index.html

But hay they weren't allies or anything. :roll:

 

[Stinger]

Whoa, there. I didn't see where it said in either article that the documents were from Saddam's HQ.

I don't think it came from a camel dealer. This is just one of the many many many documents we obtained when we took over his HQ and Intelligence HQ's and ministry's.

I don't trust Newsmax further than I can throw it

Well too bad for you since they report on a lot of facts that the mainstream will not, such as this instance. But beyond that they are reporting on the reporting of someone else in this case:

"The newly released Iraqi intelligence document - first reported by the Weekly Standard last Sunday - details a February 19, 1995 meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Osama bin Laden, who is said to have requested Iraq's help with "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia."

Moreover, I think it only cites the one because it's the only one that directly supports the Bush administration's claim.

Well talk about baseless assertions. The fact is many documents have been reported on of late and they support the reasons we went to war.

If the others did that too, they'd be detailed or at least mentioned as being corroborating evidence.

They have been in several sources, perhaps you shouldn't limit your sources so much.

Yet they are not. As for their authenticity, they could have been planted.

By whom? And why are you more willing to accept a totally baseless assertion over what the ISG found and turned over to our intelligence agencies for inspection?

Have you watched the audiotapes?

No I haven't watched the audiotapes.

What do you mean, my side? Look at my profile.

Your side who still believes Saddam wasn't such a bad guy.

I don't "accept any statement about Bush;" I am simply willing to accept criticism of him if it is warranted, and mountains of evidence say that it is.

This isn't about Bush but I see that's what you want to make it. This is about did the United States make the right decission to remove Saddam and the mountain of evidence that grows everyday indicates yes.

This is one single scrap of paper without so much as a seal of state,

Why would you expect it to have a state seal anyway?

and it has gone unreported by newspapers which- alleged bias or not- would certainly have made note of it if it were "the real deal."

Only in the ones you read apparently.

(and since it's not tangible, that's zilch). I well remember the episode that George Bush's "service records" caused,

Well I don't think that was NewsMax and our intelligence agency's believe these are authentic but then I don't think anything could prove that to you.

I counter your question with a question: why is it that you are willing to accept any uncorroborated claim of the president's goodness?

What on earth are you talking about, what presidents "goodness"?

 

[ProudAmerican]

stinger,

its much more logical to think America would plant such evidence than it is to think saddam was a threat.

wake up man.

 

[faminedynasty]

For shits sake the 9-11 Commission Report itself proved the links between alqaeda and Saddam Hussein the only people who haven't excepted the links by now are hard core anti-Bush zealots.

Then why is it that Bush himself now admits the lack of a link? Is he a liar or merely a coward? hehe.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Then why is it that Bush himself now admits the lack of a link? Is he a liar or merely a coward? hehe.

That is a total lie, Bush said that there wasn't a link between Iraq and 9-11 not that there wasn't a link between Iraq and Al-aqaeda, two different things. The links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda are well established and erufutable.

 

[Stinger]

stinger,

its much more logical to think America would plant such evidence than it is to think saddam was a threat.

wake up man.

The pretzel logic and abject deniel is just astounding, but then there are some who have invested EVERYTHING in maintaining Saddam's innocence.