All your arguments with regard to (1) are based on what we know now rather than what we knew then. Or that X was more of a threat than Y and we haven't done anything about Y?
Actually not true. Read above, the CIA, the State Department, and Richard Clarke told Bush several times that Iraq was not connected with Al Qaeda, that they hadn't supported terrorism against the West since 1993, that they weren't really connected with international terrorism in general, and that Iraq probably wouldn't use terrorist groups in the 1st place. These were at secret meetings, briefings and intelligence reports.
In April 2001, Richard Clarke, chief of Counterterrorism gave his 1st briefing to the new administration. He said that Al Qaeda was the number one threat to the U.S. and outlined plans to deal with it. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told Clarke, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Clarke told Wolfowitz, "I'm unaware of any Iraqi-sponsored terrorism directed against the United States, Paul, since 1993." Wolfowitz argued that Iraq sponsored terrorism was the real threat since it was the main state supporter in the world. Wolfowitz went on to claim that Iraq was behind Al Qaeda???s terrorism. This became the Defense Department and Vice President Cheney???s position when 9/11 happened, that Iraq was the real threat to the U.S.
As for being attacked prior to 9/11, you seem to forget the first WTC bombing.
Also, my point was that there were no attacks in the USA not "the West". You list terrorist acts in other countries because that seems to fit your argument.
No, that was my point. Do ONLY attacks against the U.S. count as the measuring stick for winning the war on terrorism? According to you then. We got attacked in the 1st WTC bombing, then we were winning, then 9/11, and now we're winning again? If Americans and our allies are getting attacked abroad that doesn't matter than? IF the number of Islamist terrorist attacks are up around the world, then that doesn't matter either? That's what I'm asking.
Did you read that statement that Vice President Cheney made? We're in Iraq to stop innocent civilians being killed by terrorists around the world. He specifically mentioned the U.S. and London. According to his OWN statement then, aren't we losing because London has been bombed? Other western countries have been bombed.
One of the administrations??? major claims for war with Iraq was that it was a state sponsor of terrorism. Combined with Iraq???s WMD arsenal, the administration claimed that Iraq???s government could not stand because it might give some of these weapons to terrorists that would attack the U.S. Itw as true that Iraq supported terrorists, but these were mostly Palestinians and attacks on Iraqi exiles. Not only that but several intelligence reports said that Iraq would not conduct terrorist attacks because it would likely lead to a U.S. attack. Not only that, intelligence also said that if Iraq really wanted to attack the U.S. it would use its own intelligence service rather than use a third party terrorist organization. Despite that, the administration said that any connection with terrorism made Iraq a threat to the U.S.
April 2001, Richard Clarke, head of Counterterrorism, gave his first briefing on terrorism to the Bush administration at a deputies meeting. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense claimed that Iraq was the main state sponsor of terrorism in the world and that Saddam, not Al Qaeda should be the center of discussion. Clarke told him, ???I'm unaware of any Iraqi-sponsored terrorism directed against the United States, Paul, since 1993." According to Clark, Wolfowitz went on to say, "He [bin Laden] could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor." Wolfowitz believed that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing although the intelligence community did not believe this and Wolfowitz???s own investigation found no evidence either. Clarke said that Al Qaeda, not Iraq was the greatest terrorist threat to the U.S.
That same month the State Department???s annual report on terrorism said that Iraq supported terrorism, but it was mostly against Iraqi exiles. Iraq had not attempted any anti-Western terrorism since 1993 when it plotted to assassinate ex-President Bush.
The intelligence community put out 3 major reports on Iraq's links with terrorism during the Bush administration.
The first was given on 9/19/02 in a CIA report called "Iraqi Support for Terrorism" It was given to 12 senior administration officials. It said that Iraq would not conduct terrorist attacks out of fear that it could be traced back to Iraq and lead to a U.S. attack.
The 10/1/02 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq said the same thing. Iraq would not use terrorist attacks because it would lead to a war with the U.S. Iraq would only use terrorist attacks if it thought it would stop a U.S. invasion. The NIE also said that Saddam kept tight control over WMDs and would probably use them on the battlefield when "He perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation."
The last major report was a revised version of the 9/19/02 report given in January 2003 "Iraqi Support for Terrorism" which was given to Congress. It said that Iraq had supported and provided safe haven to various terrorist groups, mostly Palestinians. Those groups were mostly older ones that had been inactive since the early 1990s. Iraq tried to reach out to newer Palestinian groups, but was unsuccessful. Iraq did give millions to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers however. Iraq also supported an anti-Iranian group that the U.S. listed as a terrorist group. The report said that if Iraq was going to carry out any terrorist attacks it would use its own intelligence service, which it had done in the past rather than rely on a terrorist group.
Overall, the argument that Iraq had ties to terrorists was weak. The two Palestinian terrorist groups that were in Iraq had not be active for almost 10 years, plus the intelligence said that Iraq would probably not use terrorists anyways. The opinion that Iraq would use its own intelligence service if pushed also came true as can be seen in the current insurgency.
Here are a few of the briefings and reports that Bush was given about these alleged connections.
April 2001 - Richard Clarke tells Bush and advisors Iraq not connected with Al Qaeda.
9/12/01 - Clarke told Bush and National Security Council Iraq not connected with Al Qaeda.
9/12/01 - Clarke and FBI submit report to Bush saying that Iraq not connected with Al Qaeda
9/13/01 - CIA and FBI tell Paul Wolfowitz that Iraq not connected with 1993 World Trade Center bombing
9/21/01 - Bush told in his daily intelligence briefing that Iraq not connected with Al Qaeda. Intelligence report was later passed to rest of National Security Council members such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.
Fall 2001 - CIA & FBI say that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta did not meet with Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001
February 2002 - State Department's annual report on terrorism found no connection between Iraq and 9/11 or AL Qaeda. CIA says that Iraq not responsible for any anti-western terrorism since 1993
6/12/02 - White House asked for intelligence report on Iraq-Al Qaeda ties. CIA found none
Yeah, Richard Clarke doesn't have any axes to grind. And I think you're smart enough to see the difference between the space of time between the first and second WTC bombings, and the time between 9/11 and now and the president has a Constitutional obligation to protect the United States, not London or Spain. I'm willing to admit that the administration has done a poor job of trying to create arguments to justify the war absent WMDs (personally I don't think it was necessary to do so), but arguing that it was intentionally misleading to satisfy Paul Wolfowitz is an argument discredited by numerous investigations, and its not doing the democratic party any good.
Yeah, Richard Clarke doesn't have any axes to grind. And I think you're smart enough to see the difference between the space of time between the first and second WTC bombings, and the time between 9/11 and now and the president has a Constitutional obligation to protect the United States, not London or Spain. I'm willing to admit that the administration has done a poor job of trying to create arguments to justify the war absent WMDs (personally I don't think it was necessary to do so), but arguing that it was intentionally misleading to satisfy Paul Wolfowitz is an argument discredited by numerous investigations, and its not doing the democratic party any good.
Once again, I'm not a Democrat.
2nd, if you look at the intelligence that the Bush administration was given and what their public statements were you'll find that they had nothing to stand upon when claiming that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda. It wasn't to satisfy Wolfwitz, it was part of the public relations campaign to get the country and Congress behind the ar.
Most of the information on the intelligence reports actually comes from the Senate Intelligence committee's report on pre-war intelligence that was released in July 2003, not Richard Clarke. It has a Republican committee chairman by the way in a Republican controlled Congress.
If nothing the Bush administration was getting from the intelligence community said that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, why did they keep on saying it?
When I get back from work later today I'll give you a breakdown of the intelligence the Bush administration was getting and compare it to their public statements.
Yeah, Richard Clarke doesn't have any axes to grind. And I think you're smart enough to see the difference between the space of time between the first and second WTC bombings, and the time between 9/11 and now and the president has a Constitutional obligation to protect the United States, not London or Spain. I'm willing to admit that the administration has done a poor job of trying to create arguments to justify the war absent WMDs (personally I don't think it was necessary to do so), but arguing that it was intentionally misleading to satisfy Paul Wolfowitz is an argument discredited by numerous investigations, and its not doing the democratic party any good.
So you're saying that if Americans get killed overseas (Al Qaeda's bombing of the U.S. embassies in East Africa, and the Cole bombing) that doesn't matter? If our allies get killed overseas that doesn't matter? If Islamist terrorism is increasing around the world that doesn't matter? Your ONLY measuring stick to the war on terrorism is if the U.S. gets hit?
And you're also saying that the Vice President's statement doesn't matter either?
When I get back from work later today I'll give you a breakdown of the intelligence the Bush administration was getting and compare it to their public statements.
Please pay close attention to Sabababaloo's follow-up to our posts since he opened his funny little yap. You are about to see a typical conservative in action. He will make no attempt to rebut any of the points that Motown or I have argued today. He may not even chose to post any response at all. Want to know why? Cause he doesn't know anything about what is going on. Also, expect that he will talk about my momma, my wife and my daughter. Anything to distract from the fact that he has nothing of substance to say about the war on terror.
Wu
All your arguments with regard to (1) are based on what we know now rather than what we knew then. Or that X was more of a threat than Y and we haven't done anything about Y?
As for being attacked prior to 9/11, you seem to forget the first WTC bombing.
Also, my point was that there were no attacks in the USA not "the West". You list terrorist acts in other countries because that seems to fit your argument.
Oh good Sababaloo is trying to put together a rebuttal. As I suspected it's a little short of specifics and long on indefensible positions. My response to his post-it note.
1) Bullshit. The US knew very well that Saddam had no terrorist contact with other nations before the war. If they had had even a scintilla of evidence of improprieties, they would have been included in Powell's now infamous "see thess mounds, those are chemical weapons plants" dog-and-pony show at the UN. But does it realy matter that we can't find any ties to terrorists because Sababaloo says "who cares if there was or wasn't any collusion between them. I think we should have gone to war anyway". Wow, sounds like more of my father-in-laws flawed logic again. When one argument for the war is shown hollow and ill conceived, let's switch to the next argument. Who cares what the facts on the ground are. It's time to take Saddam down (more on this latter in this post). Turns out there are consequences for getting involved in places like Iraq including the loss of thousands of Iraqi and American lives (with no end in sight), the bankrupting of the American treasury, not to mention a serious fracture in our relations with our staunchist allies in the world.
2) I didn't forget the first WTC bombing at all. Quite the opposite, I threw in Lebanon (which had to do with a nasty little civil war we were involved with at he time) so that the very few Americans who died at the hand of terrorists prior to 9/11 would stand in sharp relief to thousands that have now died in Iraq.
3) I think Motown has already shown how stupid and utterly confusing your assertion "no new attacks" is. But let's get to the heart of the matter. More Americans have died due to terrorists since 9/11 than before, there is growing strength to the terrorist movement and no end in sight. No one really feels safer now do they? Since we have already established that Iraq was not in the global terror business, it seems to me a shitty pay off for our trouble.
Oh and about Richard Clarke and his axes to grind. Even though Wolfowitz, Perle and co spent there years in exile building the case for invading Iraq and establishing a neo-Imperial beachead in the middle east, they didn't have any axes to grind in those testy post 9/11 meetings. No they were clear eyed about their approach. They never twisted facts to fit their long held agenda. No they never bypassed the intelligence community to proffer unverifiable information that made the case for war. No they took the intelligence and carefully crafted a gameplan to topple Saddam, rebuild Iraq and make the world a safer place. BRAVO, BRAVO.
1) Turns out there are consequences for getting involved in places like Iraq including the loss of thousands of Iraqi and American lives.
2) I didn't forget the first WTC bombing at all. Quite the opposite, I threw in Lebanon (which had to do with a nasty little civil war we were involved with at he time) so that the very few Americans who died at the hand of terrorists prior to 9/11 would stand in sharp relief to thousands that have now died in Iraq.
3) More Americans have died due to terrorists since 9/11 than before,
okay, i stripped out everything in your post that is either you just mouthing off, or based on unsubstantiated "facts". I left your "more americans have died due to terrorists since 9/11 because, I assume you are trying to include the number of soldiers who died in Iraq (or maybe you're just not including 9/11 itself) because it sounds like a snazzy figure and makes for a nice simple-minded conclusion in you argument.
but, as you can see, absent the opinion and the unsubstantiated you aren't left with much. Saying a lot, although it makes for longer reading than a post-it, doesn't make what you're saying true.
but, as you can see, absent the opinion and the unsubstantiated you aren't left with much. Saying a lot, although it makes for longer reading than a post-it, doesn't make what you're saying true.
I have often noticed those who talk the most usually have nothing to say.
1) Turns out there are consequences for getting involved in places like Iraq including the loss of thousands of Iraqi and American lives.
2) I didn't forget the first WTC bombing at all. Quite the opposite, I threw in Lebanon (which had to do with a nasty little civil war we were involved with at he time) so that the very few Americans who died at the hand of terrorists prior to 9/11 would stand in sharp relief to thousands that have now died in Iraq.
3) More Americans have died due to terrorists since 9/11 than before,
okay, i stripped out everything in your post that is either you just mouthing off, or based on unsubstantiated "facts". I left your "more americans have died due to terrorists since 9/11 because, I assume you are trying to include the number of soldiers who died in Iraq (or maybe you're just not including 9/11 itself) because it sounds like a snazzy figure and makes for a nice simple-minded conclusion in you argument.
but, as you can see, absent the opinion and the unsubstantiated you aren't left with much. Saying a lot, although it makes for longer reading than a post-it, doesn't make what you're saying true.
Nice try lawyer boy but editing my post does not make an argument. Rock, I hope you are wathching Sababaloo here. Notice that he is unwilling to establish his set of facts. Ones that could be verified or examined by other stutters to see if they hold water. I stand by everything I said in my above post. Wolf and Perle's writings are widely available. The IEs on Iraq have been widely reported on in the press. You did say that it doesn't matter if there was WMDs. Motown has most of the facts about all my positions listed quite neatly above. If you wish to refute any of them be my guest. Let's start with Iraq's supposed ties to Islamic terror. Now go and bring us some info, doggie.
Let's start with Iraq's supposed ties to Islamic terror. Now go and bring us some info, doggie.
The whole WMD and al qaeda thing is a bunch of redirection shit stuff. But watch ur wording... Saddam did have ties to "Islamic terror". It's well known his rewards to suicide bombers. Not that it has to do with much of what we are talking about in here.
I don't really know why these threads come up. It's not like ur going to change peoples minds with this stuff. We all have our own opinions and thoughts. No post is going to change it.
DOR, both Motown and I very explicitly stated in precious that there was no ties to terror in the west other than the Israel suicide bombings. And those, to my understanding, were actually bounties delivered after the fact and were not "direct" funding of those who organized the bombings. And we all know that had nothing to do with the invasion anyway. Anyone with more on the bounties or if Sababaloo would like to knowledge us about Saddam's ties to other terrorist groups, please feel free to chime in.
bounties delivered after the fact and were not "direct" funding of those who organized the bombings.
you actually make a distinction here?
Of course dummy. That being said we both know that this has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Get cracking on those intelligence reports showing mad connections to jihadists aiming to hurt us. We're waiting. Oh, and some response on Perle's and Wolf's pre-war writings would be nice. Time's awasting.
If the war on terror is simply measured by whether the U.S. gets attacked, then why are we in Iraq. Why did it matter whether Iraq gave WMD to terrorists or other countries? Why does it matter that we're killing lots of jihadists in Iraq as you argued in another post.Why don't we just concentrate on protecting the homeland and that's it?
In fact, if the war on terror is ONLY about protecting America, then why form alliances with other countries like England and the rest of the "coalition of the willing." You just said if they get bombed it doesn't matter. Why should they help us and why should we help them because according to your argument they don't matter. London gets bombed, so what. Madrid gets bombed, so what. According to you, as long as America doesn't get attacked that's all that matters.
And if what happens overseas DOES suddenly matter than you, than what can you say about the increase in Islamist attacks since 9/11, how the invasion of Iraq revived the Islamist movement, and the spread of Islamist terror from Asia and North Africa to Western Europe?
You can't have it both ways. Either the U.S. is the only thing that matters or the outside world is also important.
Yeah, Richard Clarke doesn't have any axes to grind. And I think you're smart enough to see the difference between the space of time between the first and second WTC bombings, and the time between 9/11 and now and the president has a Constitutional obligation to protect the United States, not London or Spain. I'm willing to admit that the administration has done a poor job of trying to create arguments to justify the war absent WMDs (personally I don't think it was necessary to do so), but arguing that it was intentionally misleading to satisfy Paul Wolfowitz is an argument discredited by numerous investigations, and its not doing the democratic party any good.
Once again, I'm not a Democrat.
2nd, if you look at the intelligence that the Bush administration was given and what their public statements were you'll find that they had nothing to stand upon when claiming that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda. It wasn't to satisfy Wolfwitz, it was part of the public relations campaign to get the country and Congress behind the ar.
Most of the information on the intelligence reports actually comes from the Senate Intelligence committee's report on pre-war intelligence that was released in July 2003, not Richard Clarke. It has a Republican committee chairman by the way in a Republican controlled Congress.
If nothing the Bush administration was getting from the intelligence community said that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, why did they keep on saying it?
And you still didn't answer me this. Bush never received an intelligence report from the FBI, CIA, the State Department, the intelligence community or Richard Clarke that said Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda. The ONLY group giving that information was the Policy Counterterrorism Group which was created within the Pentagon and staffed by two neoconservatives who had no experience in intelligence work. They gave their briefings to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, but never briefed Bush. The information about these intelligence reports almost all come from the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on post-war intelligence, that's headed by a Republican committee chairman.
Bush and the administration were also given a series of reports that said that Iraq was not supporting anti-Western terrorism. Those same reports said that if it wanted to attack the West it would probably use its own intelligence service which it had used in the past, and that really the only time it would use terrorism was if it was invaded.
What was the basis for Bush's claim that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda and international terrorism if he never received an intelligence report saying that?
bounties delivered after the fact and were not "direct" funding of those who organized the bombings.
you actually make a distinction here?
Of course dummy.
As I suspected you would rather quit than fight.
how does that saying go about competing in the special olympics?
You can dance all day but you have been called out to put up or shut up. And as I predicted you will not address our facts. You will instead edit. I look for more of this from you in the coming hours.
If the war on terror is simply measured by whether the U.S. gets attacked, then why are we in Iraq. Why did it matter whether Iraq gave WMD to terrorists or other countries? Why does it matter that we're killing lots of jihadists in Iraq as you argued in another post.Why don't we just concentrate on protecting the homeland and that's it?
In fact, if the war on terror is ONLY about protecting America, then why form alliances with other countries like England and the rest of the "coalition of the willing." You just said if they get bombed it doesn't matter. Why should they help us and why should we help them because according to your argument they don't matter. London gets bombed, so what. Madrid gets bombed, so what. According to you, as long as America doesn't get attacked that's all that matters.
And if what happens overseas DOES suddenly matter than you, than what can you say about the increase in Islamist attacks since 9/11, how the invasion of Iraq revived the Islamist movement, and the spread of Islamist terror from Asia and North Africa to Western Europe?
You can't have it both ways. Either the U.S. is the only thing that matters or the outside world is also important.
In short. cause im actually kinda busy. I do think that what happens outside the country matters primarily with respect to how it helps protect the U.S. I don't think I said it "doesn't matter". We help them because, and to the extent that it furthers our interests. Islamic terror attacks were increasing prior to 9/11 (I'm sure we could debate that if you said in two years prior they were not, I could say over 40 years they were) so claiming some strict causal relationship is stretching it; that the spread of islamic terror into SE Asia and Europe is all because of Iraq. If the alternatives are, "don't do anything and ocassionally be attacked" or "do something and be attacked more," I would still pick the second. And when I say "do something" i mean more than serve subpoenas and fire rockets into the empty desert.
[quoteIn short. cause im actually kinda busy. I do think that what happens outside the country matters primarily with respect to how it helps protect the U.S. I don't think I said it "doesn't matter". We help them because, and to the extent that it furthers our interests. Islamic terror attacks were increasing prior to 9/11 (I'm sure we could debate that if you said in two years prior they were not, I could say over 40 years they were) so claiming some strict causal relationship is stretching it; that the spread of islamic terror into SE Asia and Europe is all because of Iraq. If the alternatives are, "don't do anything and ocassionally be attacked" or "do something and be attacked more," I would still pick the second. And when I say do something i mean more than serve subpoenas and fire rockets into the empty desert. Why don't you look into the bombings of London and Madrid. Shouldn't take that long on the internet. Both of these two cells' attacks were directly related to Iraq. I posted this up on this thread already. The people in Madrid heard two announcements by Bin Laden about how Spain must be punished for helping the U.S. in Iraq and began planning their attack the next day. The group in London had similar inspiration for England's participation in Iraq.
Also look at what I posted earlier about Islamic web sites and their pronouncements. They're happy as hell about Iraq. It not only allows them to kill Americans in their own back yard, but it can also humiliate the U.S. in the international community. They were really down after Afghanistan, now they're happy as well.
Also in that previous post I talked about 2 studies of foreign fighters in Iraq. One from Saudia Arabia and the other from Israel. Both found that almost everyone going over to Iraq had never been radicals before, but were radicalized by the invasion.
Plus you're changing your starting point from post to post about the war on terror. Fist you said, I'm forgetting the 1993 WTC bombing. Then when I included it on whether we're winning the war on terror or not, you said it and 9/11 were too far apart. Now you're saying we need to go years back to see the beginning of Islamic terrorism and its progression.
Comments
He's not that funny...
funny smelling
Actually not true. Read above, the CIA, the State Department, and Richard Clarke told Bush several times that Iraq was not connected with Al Qaeda, that they hadn't supported terrorism against the West since 1993, that they weren't really connected with international terrorism in general, and that Iraq probably wouldn't use terrorist groups in the 1st place. These were at secret meetings, briefings and intelligence reports.
In April 2001, Richard Clarke, chief of Counterterrorism gave his 1st briefing to the new administration. He said that Al Qaeda was the number one threat to the U.S. and outlined plans to deal with it. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told Clarke, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Clarke told Wolfowitz, "I'm unaware of any Iraqi-sponsored terrorism directed against the United States, Paul, since 1993." Wolfowitz argued that Iraq sponsored terrorism was the real threat since it was the main state supporter in the world. Wolfowitz went on to claim that Iraq was behind Al Qaeda???s terrorism. This became the Defense Department and Vice President Cheney???s position when 9/11 happened, that Iraq was the real threat to the U.S.
No, that was my point. Do ONLY attacks against the U.S. count as the measuring stick for winning the war on terrorism? According to you then. We got attacked in the 1st WTC bombing, then we were winning, then 9/11, and now we're winning again? If Americans and our allies are getting attacked abroad that doesn't matter than? IF the number of Islamist terrorist attacks are up around the world, then that doesn't matter either? That's what I'm asking.
Did you read that statement that Vice President Cheney made? We're in Iraq to stop innocent civilians being killed by terrorists around the world. He specifically mentioned the U.S. and London. According to his OWN statement then, aren't we losing because London has been bombed? Other western countries have been bombed.
April 2001, Richard Clarke, head of Counterterrorism, gave his first briefing on terrorism to the Bush administration at a deputies meeting. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense claimed that Iraq was the main state sponsor of terrorism in the world and that Saddam, not Al Qaeda should be the center of discussion. Clarke told him, ???I'm unaware of any Iraqi-sponsored terrorism directed against the United States, Paul, since 1993." According to Clark, Wolfowitz went on to say, "He [bin Laden] could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor." Wolfowitz believed that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing although the intelligence community did not believe this and Wolfowitz???s own investigation found no evidence either. Clarke said that Al Qaeda, not Iraq was the greatest terrorist threat to the U.S.
That same month the State Department???s annual report on terrorism said that Iraq supported terrorism, but it was mostly against Iraqi exiles. Iraq had not attempted any anti-Western terrorism since 1993 when it plotted to assassinate ex-President Bush.
The intelligence community put out 3 major reports on Iraq's links with terrorism during the Bush administration.
The first was given on 9/19/02 in a CIA report called "Iraqi Support for Terrorism" It was given to 12 senior administration officials. It said that Iraq would not conduct terrorist attacks out of fear that it could be traced back to Iraq and lead to a U.S. attack.
The 10/1/02 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq said the same thing. Iraq would not use terrorist attacks because it would lead to a war with the U.S. Iraq would only use terrorist attacks if it thought it would stop a U.S. invasion. The NIE also said that Saddam kept tight control over WMDs and would probably use them on the battlefield when "He perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation."
The last major report was a revised version of the 9/19/02 report given in January 2003 "Iraqi Support for Terrorism" which was given to Congress. It said that Iraq had supported and provided safe haven to various terrorist groups, mostly Palestinians. Those groups were mostly older ones that had been inactive since the early 1990s. Iraq tried to reach out to newer Palestinian groups, but was unsuccessful. Iraq did give millions to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers however. Iraq also supported an anti-Iranian group that the U.S. listed as a terrorist group. The report said that if Iraq was going to carry out any terrorist attacks it would use its own intelligence service, which it had done in the past rather than rely on a terrorist group.
Overall, the argument that Iraq had ties to terrorists was weak. The two Palestinian terrorist groups that were in Iraq had not be active for almost 10 years, plus the intelligence said that Iraq would probably not use terrorists anyways. The opinion that Iraq would use its own intelligence service if pushed also came true as can be seen in the current insurgency.
Here are a few of the briefings and reports that Bush was given about these alleged connections.
April 2001 - Richard Clarke tells Bush and advisors Iraq not connected with Al Qaeda.
9/12/01 - Clarke told Bush and National Security Council Iraq not connected with Al Qaeda.
9/12/01 - Clarke and FBI submit report to Bush saying that Iraq not connected with Al Qaeda
9/13/01 - CIA and FBI tell Paul Wolfowitz that Iraq not connected with 1993 World Trade Center bombing
9/21/01 - Bush told in his daily intelligence briefing that Iraq not connected with Al Qaeda. Intelligence report was later passed to rest of National Security Council members such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.
Fall 2001 - CIA & FBI say that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta did not meet with Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001
February 2002 - State Department's annual report on terrorism found no connection between Iraq and 9/11 or AL Qaeda. CIA says that Iraq not responsible for any anti-western terrorism since 1993
6/12/02 - White House asked for intelligence report on Iraq-Al Qaeda ties. CIA found none
Once again, I'm not a Democrat.
2nd, if you look at the intelligence that the Bush administration was given and what their public statements were you'll find that they had nothing to stand upon when claiming that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda. It wasn't to satisfy Wolfwitz, it was part of the public relations campaign to get the country and Congress behind the ar.
Most of the information on the intelligence reports actually comes from the Senate Intelligence committee's report on pre-war intelligence that was released in July 2003, not Richard Clarke. It has a Republican committee chairman by the way in a Republican controlled Congress.
If nothing the Bush administration was getting from the intelligence community said that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, why did they keep on saying it?
So you're saying that if Americans get killed overseas (Al Qaeda's bombing of the U.S. embassies in East Africa, and the Cole bombing) that doesn't matter? If our allies get killed overseas that doesn't matter? If Islamist terrorism is increasing around the world that doesn't matter? Your ONLY measuring stick to the war on terrorism is if the U.S. gets hit?
And you're also saying that the Vice President's statement doesn't matter either?
you work too much.
Oh good Sababaloo is trying to put together a rebuttal. As I suspected it's a little short of specifics and long on indefensible positions. My response to his post-it note.
1) Bullshit. The US knew very well that Saddam had no terrorist contact with other nations before the war. If they had had even a scintilla of evidence of improprieties, they would have been included in Powell's now infamous "see thess mounds, those are chemical weapons plants" dog-and-pony show at the UN. But does it realy matter that we can't find any ties to terrorists because Sababaloo says "who cares if there was or wasn't any collusion between them. I think we should have gone to war anyway". Wow, sounds like more of my father-in-laws flawed logic again. When one argument for the war is shown hollow and ill conceived, let's switch to the next argument. Who cares what the facts on the ground are. It's time to take Saddam down (more on this latter in this post). Turns out there are consequences for getting involved in places like Iraq including the loss of thousands of Iraqi and American lives (with no end in sight), the bankrupting of the American treasury, not to mention a serious fracture in our relations with our staunchist allies in the world.
2) I didn't forget the first WTC bombing at all. Quite the opposite, I threw in Lebanon (which had to do with a nasty little civil war we were involved with at he time) so that the very few Americans who died at the hand of terrorists prior to 9/11 would stand in sharp relief to thousands that have now died in Iraq.
3) I think Motown has already shown how stupid and utterly confusing your assertion "no new attacks" is. But let's get to the heart of the matter. More Americans have died due to terrorists since 9/11 than before, there is growing strength to the terrorist movement and no end in sight. No one really feels safer now do they? Since we have already established that Iraq was not in the global terror business, it seems to me a shitty pay off for our trouble.
Oh and about Richard Clarke and his axes to grind. Even though Wolfowitz, Perle and co spent there years in exile building the case for invading Iraq and establishing a neo-Imperial beachead in the middle east, they didn't have any axes to grind in those testy post 9/11 meetings. No they were clear eyed about their approach. They never twisted facts to fit their long held agenda. No they never bypassed the intelligence community to proffer unverifiable information that made the case for war. No they took the intelligence and carefully crafted a gameplan to topple Saddam, rebuild Iraq and make the world a safer place. BRAVO, BRAVO.
okay, i stripped out everything in your post that is either you just mouthing off, or based on unsubstantiated "facts". I left your "more americans have died due to terrorists since 9/11 because, I assume you are trying to include the number of soldiers who died in Iraq (or maybe you're just not including 9/11 itself) because it sounds like a snazzy figure and makes for a nice simple-minded conclusion in you argument.
but, as you can see, absent the opinion and the unsubstantiated you aren't left with much. Saying a lot, although it makes for longer reading than a post-it, doesn't make what you're saying true.
I have often noticed those who talk the most usually have nothing to say.
Nice try lawyer boy but editing my post does not make an argument. Rock, I hope you are wathching Sababaloo here. Notice that he is unwilling to establish his set of facts. Ones that could be verified or examined by other stutters to see if they hold water. I stand by everything I said in my above post. Wolf and Perle's writings are widely available. The IEs on Iraq have been widely reported on in the press. You did say that it doesn't matter if there was WMDs. Motown has most of the facts about all my positions listed quite neatly above. If you wish to refute any of them be my guest. Let's start with Iraq's supposed ties to Islamic terror. Now go and bring us some info, doggie.
The whole WMD and al qaeda thing is a bunch of redirection shit stuff. But watch ur wording... Saddam did have ties to "Islamic terror". It's well known his rewards to suicide bombers. Not that it has to do with much of what we are talking about in here.
I don't really know why these threads come up. It's not like ur going to change peoples minds with this stuff. We all have our own opinions and thoughts. No post is going to change it.
But enjoy the reading none the less...
you actually make a distinction here?
Of course dummy. That being said we both know that this has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Get cracking on those intelligence reports showing mad connections to jihadists aiming to hurt us. We're waiting. Oh, and some response on Perle's and Wolf's pre-war writings would be nice. Time's awasting.
If the war on terror is simply measured by whether the U.S. gets attacked, then why are we in Iraq. Why did it matter whether Iraq gave WMD to terrorists or other countries? Why does it matter that we're killing lots of jihadists in Iraq as you argued in another post.Why don't we just concentrate on protecting the homeland and that's it?
In fact, if the war on terror is ONLY about protecting America, then why form alliances with other countries like England and the rest of the "coalition of the willing." You just said if they get bombed it doesn't matter. Why should they help us and why should we help them because according to your argument they don't matter. London gets bombed, so what. Madrid gets bombed, so what. According to you, as long as America doesn't get attacked that's all that matters.
And if what happens overseas DOES suddenly matter than you, than what can you say about the increase in Islamist attacks since 9/11, how the invasion of Iraq revived the Islamist movement, and the spread of Islamist terror from Asia and North Africa to Western Europe?
You can't have it both ways. Either the U.S. is the only thing that matters or the outside world is also important.
As I suspected you would rather quit than fight.
how does that saying go about competing in the special olympics?
And you still didn't answer me this. Bush never received an intelligence report from the FBI, CIA, the State Department, the intelligence community or Richard Clarke that said Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda. The ONLY group giving that information was the Policy Counterterrorism Group which was created within the Pentagon and staffed by two neoconservatives who had no experience in intelligence work. They gave their briefings to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, but never briefed Bush. The information about these intelligence reports almost all come from the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on post-war intelligence, that's headed by a Republican committee chairman.
Bush and the administration were also given a series of reports that said that Iraq was not supporting anti-Western terrorism. Those same reports said that if it wanted to attack the West it would probably use its own intelligence service which it had used in the past, and that really the only time it would use terrorism was if it was invaded.
What was the basis for Bush's claim that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda and international terrorism if he never received an intelligence report saying that?
You were a participant in the Special Olympics?
You're surprised?
You can dance all day but you have been called out to put up or shut up. And as I predicted you will not address our facts. You will instead edit. I look for more of this from you in the coming hours.
In short. cause im actually kinda busy. I do think that what happens outside the country matters primarily with respect to how it helps protect the U.S. I don't think I said it "doesn't matter". We help them because, and to the extent that it furthers our interests. Islamic terror attacks were increasing prior to 9/11 (I'm sure we could debate that if you said in two years prior they were not, I could say over 40 years they were) so claiming some strict causal relationship is stretching it; that the spread of islamic terror into SE Asia and Europe is all because of Iraq. If the alternatives are, "don't do anything and ocassionally be attacked" or "do something and be attacked more," I would still pick the second. And when I say "do something" i mean more than serve subpoenas and fire rockets into the empty desert.
Why don't you look into the bombings of London and Madrid. Shouldn't take that long on the internet. Both of these two cells' attacks were directly related to Iraq. I posted this up on this thread already. The people in Madrid heard two announcements by Bin Laden about how Spain must be punished for helping the U.S. in Iraq and began planning their attack the next day. The group in London had similar inspiration for England's participation in Iraq.
Also look at what I posted earlier about Islamic web sites and their pronouncements. They're happy as hell about Iraq. It not only allows them to kill Americans in their own back yard, but it can also humiliate the U.S. in the international community. They were really down after Afghanistan, now they're happy as well.
Also in that previous post I talked about 2 studies of foreign fighters in Iraq. One from Saudia Arabia and the other from Israel. Both found that almost everyone going over to Iraq had never been radicals before, but were radicalized by the invasion.
Plus you're changing your starting point from post to post about the war on terror. Fist you said, I'm forgetting the 1993 WTC bombing. Then when I included it on whether we're winning the war on terror or not, you said it and 9/11 were too far apart. Now you're saying we need to go years back to see the beginning of Islamic terrorism and its progression.
Give me your argument for how Bush linked Iraq with Al Qaeda and terrorism.