and fatty16corners beat you to it with a much better retort.
Um, I don't think you got what 16Corners was referring to... It wasn't better, it was more politically charged.
How does the US own a part of Cuba. It just doesn't make sense...
And it's a very sophisticated way of saying 'We don't torture people on our American soil.' It's a charade. We have a citizen there who has been there for almost 4 years without a single charge laid against him. The British managed to get their people freed. Our spineless govt has licked Bush's arse all the way & says shit like, 'He'll get a fair trail'. Yet his own US military assigned defence lawyer (US..???) has already publicly stated that he won't. He's been held as an enemy combatant. Similiar situation to your John Walker Lindh... Except that he isn't American...
I think we'd rather be a bunch of pussies & live in a free society than be some hard-core motherfuckers living in a police state or a totalatarian society..
I agree with you completely. Its very sad that the politicians are using this as an opportunity to erode the civil liberties.
The powers allow officers to act without evidence of wrong-doing. Usually there is a restriction on the police's power to stop and search because they need to have a reasonable suspicion that somebody is carrying a stolen item or has a weapon, or something along those lines. But with this particular power there's absolutely no need for reasonable suspicion at all - so there's nothing restricting the officers' use.
And you know that its only the little jumped up bullies who are using it as well.
well sabadabadabadab has really done a great service to anyone on the pro-war side(sarcasm, but that part when he asked larry if he would eat him did make me laugh, sorry larry, i love u) i really miss vitamin!
i read this on andrew sullivan's blog and i liked it so...
We have to resist two temptations, I think. The first is not to absorb the human cost of war. Every dead - and maimed - soldier has a story, a narrative, a family, a life and a soul. Their young deaths - so young in so many cases - are worthy of the deepest mourning; and their service of the deepest respect. I don't think it inappropriate for the news media to show them in full, or to mark an anniversary like the one we just observed. It is an important part of our moral calculus.
But the second temptation is to move the goalposts on this war and to expect the impossible. If someone had told me three years ago that by October 2005, Saddam Hussein's murderous tyranny would be over for ever, that Iraq would have a new constitution that emerged from a democratic process and that it will soon have a democratically elected parliament and government, I would have been thrilled. If I were further told that the inevitably embittered Sunni Arab minority had decided to throw itself into democratic politics to amend the constitution and protect its interests in a future Iraq, I would be amazed by how swiftly democratic habits can take root in a post-totalitarian country. If I had been told that, despite extraordinary provocation from Jihadist and Sunni Arab terrorists, the country had not dissolved into civil war, and that unemployment was dropping, I'd be heartened. If I had also been told that the United States had not suffered another major terror attack since the fall of 2001, I would have refused to believe it. The fact that the administration has made countless, terrible errors in the aftermath of the invasion and miscalculated badly on how the Baathists and Jihadists would fight back, should not distract us from these underlying realities. In 2002, I feared U.S. casualties approaching 10,000 in a brutal, urban war for Baghdad. The enemy gave us a simmering insurgency instead, shrewdly calculating that that was their best defense. They were right in the short term. But that makes it all the more imperative to prove them wrong in the long term. For the sake of the 2,000 who have already died; and the countless, innocent civilian Iraqis who have borne an even greater burden, let's do all we can to make this work.
well sabadabadabadab has really done a great service to anyone on the pro-war side(sarcasm, but that part when he asked larry if he would eat him did make me laugh, sorry larry, i love u) i really miss vitamin!
i read this on andrew sullivan's blog and i liked it so...
We have to resist two temptations, I think. The first is not to absorb the human cost of war. Every dead - and maimed - soldier has a story, a narrative, a family, a life and a soul. Their young deaths - so young in so many cases - are worthy of the deepest mourning; and their service of the deepest respect. I don't think it inappropriate for the news media to show them in full, or to mark an anniversary like the one we just observed. It is an important part of our moral calculus.
But the second temptation is to move the goalposts on this war and to expect the impossible. If someone had told me three years ago that by October 2005, Saddam Hussein's murderous tyranny would be over for ever, that Iraq would have a new constitution that emerged from a democratic process and that it will soon have a democratically elected parliament and government, I would have been thrilled. If I were further told that the inevitably embittered Sunni Arab minority had decided to throw itself into democratic politics to amend the constitution and protect its interests in a future Iraq, I would be amazed by how swiftly democratic habits can take root in a post-totalitarian country. If I had been told that, despite extraordinary provocation from Jihadist and Sunni Arab terrorists, the country had not dissolved into civil war, and that unemployment was dropping, I'd be heartened. If I had also been told that the United States had not suffered another major terror attack since the fall of 2001, I would have refused to believe it. The fact that the administration has made countless, terrible errors in the aftermath of the invasion and miscalculated badly on how the Baathists and Jihadists would fight back, should not distract us from these underlying realities. In 2002, I feared U.S. casualties approaching 10,000 in a brutal, urban war for Baghdad. The enemy gave us a simmering insurgency instead, shrewdly calculating that that was their best defense. They were right in the short term. But that makes it all the more imperative to prove them wrong in the long term. For the sake of the 2,000 who have already died; and the countless, innocent civilian Iraqis who have borne an even greater burden, let's do all we can to make this work.
The problem with these statements is that the Sunnis voting in the recent constituional elections doesn't prove that they've joined "democratic politics" or taken up "democratic habits." The Shiites and Kurds tried to keep out the Sunnis from the constitutional deliberations, but got forced into accepting a few by the U.S. Ambassador. Most of what the Sunnis wanted was ignored and then they dropped all the hard issues out of the Constitution completely to meet the election deadline. When it came to voting, the Sunnis overwhelming voted "No." The fact that the Constitution passed anyway, just goes to piss off the Sunnis more. That's not progress in my book towards an Iraqi democracy, it's just more treading water, because the country is no closer to coming to grips with its various factions with the constitution or without it. In fact, the Constitution and the recent election brings up all the sectarion and ethnic divisions within the country rather than hinting at a possible solution. And all you have to look at is the fact that there are now Shiite and Kurdish death squads, widespread torture, detention of thousands of innocent Sunnis, a steadily increasing number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces each month, the utter incompetence of the Iraqi security forces, and the growing number of Iraqi civilian casualties, to makes these kinds of statements by war supporters (Hey we had an election things are changing!) look more and more like grasping for strays to "Keep hope alive" rather than face the realities of just how crappy the situation is in the country.
And 3rdstream you've been posting these little tidbits of "hope" for how long now? Fallujah was the turning point and the end of the insurgency? Things are better in Iraq because property values are up? The 1st election was the end of the insurgency and the Sunnis need to stop acting like little children and join the process? etc. By your own statements the insurgency should have ended about 1-2 years ago right?
dont forget the 3,000 who died in the WTC so its even more, right?
Here's something for our new friend saba. I wrote this up a while ago, but addresses the Bush administration trying to link Iraq, Al Qaeda and 9/11.
1)Iraq had contacts with Al Qaeda[/b]
A. Iraqi intelligence officials had met with Al Qaeda in 1994 and 1995 because they were both against Saudi Arabia, but nothing came of it.
B. Before 9/11 some in the Bush administration thought Iraq was more of a threat than Al Qaeda, and immediately after 9/11 Bush and others automatically began suspecting Iraq was involved, but that proved false.
C. The administration continually made claims of Al Qaeda-Iraqi links when they were either questioned or even after they had been told there was no evidence. Three specific claims that proved to be not supported were that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in April 2001, and that Iraq gave training to Al Qaeda operatives. Despite continued reports that these incidents did not happen, some in the administration continue to repeat them to this day.
D. There are still 3 disputed claims of Iraq-Al Qaeda links. 1) The Sudan bombing in 1998, 2) The connection between Iraq and Ansar Al-Islam, an anti-Kurdish group that worked in Northern Iraq, and 3) The presence of terrorist Musab Al-Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war.
Early Contacts[/b]
These are the 1994 and 1995 meetings that are not disputed between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
There were at least 3 meetings in Sudan when Al Qaeda was first getting started in 1994 and 1995. The meetings were arranged by Sudan who was hosting Al Qaeda and who also had close ties with Iraq. An Iraqi intelligence officer met with Bin Laden during the third meeting. They met because they were both opposed to Saudi Arabia. After these meetings Iraq agreed to rebroadcast an anti-Suadi speech that bin Laden had made, but Bin Laden???s request that Iraq help with training camps and buying weapons was ignored. The intelligence community , the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 commission all believe that these meetings led to no cooperation. There are also reports that Iraqi officials may have met with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 1996, but they did not result in any cooperation.
During the Clinton administration there were conflicting reports of links between Iraq and al Qaeda. A 1998 review of Iraq called for the by National Security Council found no relationship with Iraq. In August 1988 however, Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan after Al Qaeda attacked 2 American embassies in Africa and claimed that the plans were linked to Iraq???s WMD program. They alleged that there were phone conversations between the plant and the head of Iraq???s WMD program. Clinton officials still claim that this link exists but there is no hard intelligence to prove it.
Early Bush Administration and 9/11[/b]
Early on in the Bush administration, Richard Clarke, head of Counterterrorism was shocked to find that the neoconservatives in the administration were more concerned about Iraq than Al Qaeda as a threat to the U.S., and either tried to say that Al Qaeda was not important or that it was controlled by Iraq.
In April 2001 when Richard Clarke made his first terrorism briefing to the Bush administration, Wolfowitz wanted to talk about Iraq???s support of terrorism, rather than Al Qaeda. According to Clarke, Wolfowitz said, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Wolfowitz also said, "You give bin Laden too much credit." Wolfowitz then tried to tie al Qaeda with Iraq, but Clarke told him there was no connection.
When 9/11 happened, Bush and the neoconservatives automatically assumed that Iraq was behind it, but no links were found. After that the administration referred to a long relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, probably referring to the 1994 and 1995 meetings. The administration claimed that the two had continued meetings after that, but that is disputed. Two specific examples that members of the administration brought up, have not been proven. One was that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001. This claim was refuted again and again, but Cheney still claims that it happened to this day. Wolfowitz also pushed a claim that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. His own investigation found no evidence, but Wolfowitz still argued that it happened.
Trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 happened within hours of the attack. According to CBS News within 5 hours of 9/11 Rumsfeld demanded "The best info fast. Judge whether good enough to hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein]." Rumsfeld told Pentagon lawyer to have Wolfowitz look into connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda the day of 9/11 as well.
On 9/12/01 Richard Clarke said that Bush and neoconservatives in the administration asked about a connection between the attacks and Iraq. Clarke said, "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection." Clarke told them, "There's just no connection. There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda." Bush later pulled Clarke over during a break in a National Security Council meeting and said, "I want you to find whether Iraq did this." When Clarke told Bush, "Mr. President al Qaeda did this," and "we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq," Bush "testily" urged Clarke to "Look into Iraq, Saddam." Clarke was left with the impression that Bush wanted to find a connection no matter what. Clarke and FBI experts later wrote a report finding no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The report was rejected by either Rice or her deputy Stephan Hadley, and told "Wrong answer ??? Do it again." Clarke wrote in his book, "Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to take advantage of this national tragedy [9/11] to promote their agenda about Iraq."
On 9/13/01 Wolfowitz in conference calls with officials started asking if Iraq was involved in 9/11. He also began lobbying Cheney that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that it was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
9/15/01 Bush held a national security meeting at Camp David to discuss responses to 9/11. Wolowitz estimated that there was a 10-50% chance Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that the U.S. had to go after Iraq if it was serious about the war on terror. He had no evidence to support his claim, it was pure speculation.
Bush administration tries to link Iraq with Al Qaeda[/b]
After mostly dropping the 9/11 connection, the administration changed to claiming that there had been a long relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This claim has also been disputed.
In October, 2001 the Defense Department set up its own alternative intelligence unit, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group. One of its conclusions was that divisions within the Muslim world were breaking down, and that various Islamic terrorist groups and states were all working together to attack the U.S. This allowed Iraq and al Qaeda to work together. In January, 2002 the Policy Group also made a report criticizing the CIA because it had reported contacts, but not cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Policy Group claimed that there was cooperation. The Group???s findings were presented to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, the CIA and others.
Also in October, the Iraqi National Congress tried to cash in by providing two Iraqi defectors that claimed that the 9/11 hijackers were trained in Iraq. This has not been proven.
In November, 2001 Soldiers found documents that Al Qaeda was trying to acquire WMDs in a safe house in Afghanistan. White House official, "Iraq was the easiest place they could get them from." S
tatement was an assumption, based on no evidence.
Due to questioning by administration officials, CIA published report on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda on 6/21/02. It found sporadic contacts but no cooperation.
9/25/02 Bush told reporters, "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." Rice claimed there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda establishing a relationship.
10/1/02 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq said that Iraq would only give WMDs to terrorists such as al Qaeda as a "last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." It mentioned the 1994 and 1995 meetings in Sudan over their mutual hatred for Saudi government, but said that those led to nothing. There were also reports that Iraq trained al Qaeda members in bomb and poison making, but it had not been confirmed. This report was later proven false. Ironically the NIE predicted that an American attack on Iraq would lead to exactly what Bush had hoped to stop, cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
10/7/02 Bush in a speech about Iraq in Cincinnati claimed that "Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases." Bush claimed that Iraq and al Qaeda had "high-level contacts that go back a decade." Same day Tenet sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee stating that Iraq had asked Iraq for help with WMD, and also said Iraq had provided training to al Qaeda in handling WMD. Tenet also said that the chances of Iraq turning over WMDs to al Qaeda was "low, in part because it would constitute an admission that he possess" WMD. Claims of Iraq training Al Qaeda were later shown to be from questionable sources.
January 2003 the CIA made a revised report on Iraq and terrorism. The CIA said that it couldn???t make a conclusive assessment about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda because of a lack of good intelligence. In the CIA???s opinion however, Iraq did not know about 9/11 before it happened. It said that Saddam was opposed to the Saudi form of Islam, Wahabism which made contact with Al Qaeda difficult. It interviewed two senior Al Qaeda leaders in U.S. custody, Abu Zubaydah, Al Qaeda's haed of training and recruiting, and Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, 9/11 planner, on Iraqi connections. They said that there was no alliance. The report reviewed claims that there had been contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda since the ones in Sudan, but found that the reports were not all reliable and many came from foreign governments and exile groups that were biased. The CIA found that reports of Iraqi training of Al Qaeda turned out to be Al Qaeda asking for training, but they found no evidence that it had ever happened. There were uncorroborated reports that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda operatives at Salman Pak counterterrorism training camp. One source came from the INC and he exaggerated his story and others just repeated the INC defector. (The July 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-war Iraqi intelligence found no Al Qaeda sources that claimed they had been trained at Salman Pak.) There were also reports that Iraq had offered safe haven to Bin Laden in 1998 and 1999 although one of those reports also said that Iraq had rejected the offer. The CIA found no connection between Iraq and the December, 2002 assassination of USAD officer Foleyin in Jordan. Also said that Iraq had not cooperated in any Al Qaeda terrorist attacks. In the end, the report said that Iraq might use terrorism if attacked, but it had no intelligence to support this claim.
In Powell???s 2/5/03 U.N. speech he claimed that in the early to mid-1990s Al Qaeda and Iraq had agreed to a nonagression pact, since then the two had met at least 8 times. Bin Laden met with head of Iraqi intelligence. Iraq sent agents to Afghanistan to train Al Qaeda in forging documents. Claimed in 2000 Iraq offered to give 2 al Qaeda operatives WMD training, but didn't know if it was followed up. The claim that Iraq had given WMD training to Iraq was actually false. It was based upon an Iraqi National Congress defector interviewed by the Defense Intelligence Agency, who later changed his story when interviewed by the CIA. He told the CIA he had trained Saddam???s Fedayeen, not al Qaeda, and he never dealt with WMD. The nonagression pact could also not be proved.
2/11/03 Tenet testified to Senate Intelligence Committee claiming Iraq had trained 2 al Qaeda operatives in forgery, bomb making and WMD. Claim was not based upon any new intelligence. Next day he told the Committee that the CIA did not find Iraq controlling al Qaeda, it could show that there were contacts, training and safe havens.
More recently, the 6/16/04 preliminary report of the 9/11 commission found contacts, but no cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
No Connections, but the Administration won???t give up[/b]
Beginning in the Fall of 2001 after 9/11 officials tried to confirm whether Mohammad Atta, head of the 9/11 hijackers, had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in April 2001. CIA & FBI both claimed that it could not have happened and that Atta was in Florida 2 days before the alleged meeting. The meeting was refuted several more times.
January 2003 revised CIA report on ???Iraqi Support for Terrorism??? said that Atta never met with Iraqis.
2/24/04 Tenet told Congress the CIA couldn???t prove the Atta meeting one way or the other.
6/16/04 preliminary report of the 9/11 Commission said that the Atta meeting never took place.
7/1/04 Tenet sent letter to Congress saying that it was unlikely that Atta met with Iraqis.
Despite the lack of support, the administration and others continued to claim that the Atta meeting happened.
October 2001 Jim Woolsey former CIA director under Clinton, wrote Op. Ed. Piece for Wall Street Journal claiming that Mohamed Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence in Czech Republic as evidence that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
Late 2001 William Safire wrote column in New York Times claiming Atta met with Iraqi intelligence and claiming that this was "the undisputed fact connecting Iraq's Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks."
12/9/01 Cheney told Meet The Press, "It's been pretty well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
September 2002 Wolfowitz and other Pentagon officials met with FBI's assistant director for counterterrorism, Pat D'Amuro about reported meeting between Mohamed Atta and Iraqi intelligence. D???Amuro said there was no evidence that it happened. Wolfowitz pressured D'Amuro to acknowledge that the meeting was at least possible.
On 7/22/02 the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group was creating its briefing for administration officials on its findings of Iraq-Al Qaeda links. It had a slide claiming that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence. Not only that but the briefing claimed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had actively collaborated on 9/11 and WMD. Because of these connections, the Group advocated attacking Iraq. As stated above, this briefing was made to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, the CIA and others in late 2002.
Later on in an intelligence meeting on 8/20/02 the Policy Group argued for inclusion of the Atta claim in an intelligence report, but they were rebuffed.
The White House tried to get Powell to include the Atta claim in his 2/5/03 speech to the U.N. but Powell threw it out as unverified. Cheney???s chief of staff I.Lewis Libby even called up Powell???s office either the day before or day of the speech to try to get the Atta claim put back in Powell???s speech but it was no included.
More recently, on 6/17/04 Cheney told CNBCs Capitol Report that there was overwhelming evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda and uses the Atta meeting as evidence.
On 7/8/04 Senator Levin made public Tenet???s letter saying that the Atta meeting didn???t happen and Cheney???s staff turned around and blamed
the CIA, saying that everything Cheney says about Al Qaeda-Iraqi links is based upon CIA briefings.
Remaining questions about links[/b]
A still disputed link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is the role of Ansar al-Islam. Ansar was an anti-Kurd Islamic group in Kurdish Iraq who was affiliated with Al Qaeda. Some believe that while the Iraqi government knew what the Ansar group was doing, the two were not connected because Iraq had no real authority in the Kurdish north. During the war, Ansar fled into Iran, for example, rather than South into the Sunni part of Iraq. Others believe that since the group was operating in Iraq it was supported by Saddam and is used as an example of cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq.
Another point of contention is Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. He is currently the head of the Islamic insurgents in Iraq. He had been living in Baghdad since before the war and is an associate of Al Qaeda. Like Ansar, people claim that this was evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, because the Iraqi government must have known about his presence and allowed him to stay.
End of August 2002 Rumsfeld claimed, "There are al-Qaeda in a number of locations in Iraq,??? and "It's very hard to imagine the government is not aware of what's taking place in the country."
September 2002 CIA report said al Qaeda looking to gain WMD from Iraq. Was probably a reference to Ansar Al-Islam.
9/2/02 Pentagon official claimed that dozens of middle leve al-Qaeda operatives fled to Iraq after Afghanistan war. Intelligence community claimed that these al-Qaeda operatives were based in Kurdish North where Iraq has no presence. "The al-Qaeda people are not official guests of the Iraqi government," according to senior intelligence official.
In Bush???s 10/7/02 speech in Cincinnati he mentioned the Zarqawi claim, but did not name him. Bush: "A very senior al-Qaeda leader received medical treatment in Baghdad this year."
In the CIA???s January, 2003 report on Iraq and terrorism, Al Qaeda head of training and recruiting, Abu Zubaydah, now in U.S. custody, said that Abu Musab Zarqawi had a good relationship with Iraq, but that bin Laden would not have agreed to an alliance with Iraq. The CIA said that since May 2002 Abu Zarqawi had been in Baghdad with Iraqi knowledge, and that 100-200 al Qaeda operatives had joined Ansar Al-Islam in the Kurdish north in the Fall of 2001 after the Afghan war. Iraq knew about presence and probably allowed it.
In Powell???s 2/5/03 U.N. speech he said that Iraq continued to maintain Al Qaeda operative Abu Musab Zarqawai who headed an Al Qaeda cell in Baghdad along with 12 other Al Qaeda operatives. Powell claimed that Ansar Al-Islam was proof that there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
Before the war, intelligence community had concluded that Zarqawi was not an al Qaeda member, but a leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occassional associated with al Qaeda.
Overall, I think the intelligence community was vary cautious in their reports about Iraq and Al Qaeda. Unlike their reporting on Iraq???s WMD, they also noted the problems with their sources and made cautious opinions rather than stating facts. While there are still 3 questionable ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda (the Sudan factory, Ansar Islam and Zarqawi) the intelligence community still found no evidence that Iraq had supported or cooperated in any Al Qaeda attacks. For the last two, it just seems like Iraq let them stay there but didn???t help them with anything.
I also believe that the Bush administration had a set of anti-Iraq biases that shaped their views as can be seen in their jumping on Iraq before and right after 9/11. I also think the administration exaggerated claims about Iraq-Al Qaeda links to get the public behind their policy. For example, from statements made by Dick Cheney on the Atta-Iraqi meeting, I think he felt that since the intelligence community couldn???t prove that the meeting DIDN???T happen, then he would keep on saying it and continues to this day. Likewise, Wolfowitz couldn???t find any evidence that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but he continued to argue that it was true. The administration also put pressure on the intelligence community to find such links. The Senate Intelligence Committee???s 1st report said they found no evidence, but co-chair Senator Rockefeller believed there was pressure, and former Deputy Director of CIA Richard J. Kerr as part of a CIA initiated review of prewar intelligence testified to Congress on 7/1/03 that there was constant pressure by the administration on the CIA to find links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
I also think that it???s ironic that the Bush administration got exactly what they said they were trying to stop. Now there are Al Qaeda operatives active in Iraq attacking and killing Americans, and it gave Bin Laden the exact kind of propaganda opportunity he wanted to prove his point that the U.S. is trying to destroy Muslims.
Here's another one I wrote about Iraq and its links to Terrorism before the war.
Iraq had links with terrorists[/b]
A. The groups Iraq had contacts were with were mostly Palestinians that had not been active since the early 1990s.
B. Intelligence reports said that Iraq wouldn't use terrorist groups because it would probably lead to a U.S. attack.
C. If Iraq wanted to carry out terrorist attacks it would use its own intelligence service, not a terrorist group.
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 believe d that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing although the intelligence community does 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.
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 mostly 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, I think the argument that Iraq had ties to terrorists was weak. I don???t think there is a single Arab country that doesn???t support the Palestinians. The actual Palestinian terrorist groups that Iraq did support were basically inactive for almost 10 years. The opinion that Iraq would use its own intelligence service if pushed also came true as can be seen in the current insurgency.
^^^ Saved that & will read in a moment. Looks well researched & factually driven as opposed to irrational rhetoric.
Good to see some intelligent rational heads up on here. We all love records, but surely we all love life even more. No reason why it shouldn't be discussed here or anywhere.
Comments
Um, I don't think you got what 16Corners was referring to...
It wasn't better, it was more politically charged.
How does the US own a part of Cuba. It just doesn't make sense...
And it's a very sophisticated way of saying 'We don't torture people on our American soil.' It's a charade.
We have a citizen there who has been there for almost 4 years without a single charge laid against him. The British managed to get their people freed. Our spineless govt has licked Bush's arse all the way & says shit like, 'He'll get a fair trail'. Yet his own US military assigned defence lawyer (US..???) has already publicly stated that he won't. He's been held as an enemy combatant. Similiar situation to your John Walker Lindh... Except that he isn't American...
To stoop to your 5th grade level, I don't eat shit, I squeeze it out...
Kneespins are so Turbo... You'd lose.
Ha... What a pisser! Classic.
Ernie Hines "Our Generation"
Thanks! I'll be here all week! Fat, fabulous and fucking with fools...
America fuck yeah, commin to save the motherfuckin day!!!!
Oh the Strut, the Strut...
I agree with you completely. Its very sad that the politicians are using this as an opportunity to erode the civil liberties.
The powers allow officers to act without evidence of wrong-doing. Usually there is a restriction on the police's power to stop and search because they need to have a reasonable suspicion that somebody is carrying a stolen item or has a weapon, or something along those lines. But with this particular power there's absolutely no need for reasonable suspicion at all - so there's nothing restricting the officers' use.
And you know that its only the little jumped up bullies who are using it as well.
Everything about this is
Aint that the truth.
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
And we voted back in his little follower. Very sad.
i read this on andrew sullivan's blog and i liked it so...
The problem with these statements is that the Sunnis voting in the recent constituional elections doesn't prove that they've joined "democratic politics" or taken up "democratic habits." The Shiites and Kurds tried to keep out the Sunnis from the constitutional deliberations, but got forced into accepting a few by the U.S. Ambassador. Most of what the Sunnis wanted was ignored and then they dropped all the hard issues out of the Constitution completely to meet the election deadline. When it came to voting, the Sunnis overwhelming voted "No." The fact that the Constitution passed anyway, just goes to piss off the Sunnis more. That's not progress in my book towards an Iraqi democracy, it's just more treading water, because the country is no closer to coming to grips with its various factions with the constitution or without it. In fact, the Constitution and the recent election brings up all the sectarion and ethnic divisions within the country rather than hinting at a possible solution. And all you have to look at is the fact that there are now Shiite and Kurdish death squads, widespread torture, detention of thousands of innocent Sunnis, a steadily increasing number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces each month, the utter incompetence of the Iraqi security forces, and the growing number of Iraqi civilian casualties, to makes these kinds of statements by war supporters (Hey we had an election things are changing!) look more and more like grasping for strays to "Keep hope alive" rather than face the realities of just how crappy the situation is in the country.
And 3rdstream you've been posting these little tidbits of "hope" for how long now? Fallujah was the turning point and the end of the insurgency? Things are better in Iraq because property values are up? The 1st election was the end of the insurgency and the Sunnis need to stop acting like little children and join the process? etc. By your own statements the insurgency should have ended about 1-2 years ago right?
Here's something for our new friend saba. I wrote this up a while ago, but addresses the Bush administration trying to link Iraq, Al Qaeda and 9/11.
1)Iraq had contacts with Al Qaeda[/b]
A. Iraqi intelligence officials had met with Al Qaeda in 1994 and 1995 because they were both against Saudi Arabia, but nothing came of it.
B. Before 9/11 some in the Bush administration thought Iraq was more of a threat than Al Qaeda, and immediately after 9/11 Bush and others automatically began suspecting Iraq was involved, but that proved false.
C. The administration continually made claims of Al Qaeda-Iraqi links when they were either questioned or even after they had been told there was no evidence. Three specific claims that proved to be not supported were that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in April 2001, and that Iraq gave training to Al Qaeda operatives. Despite continued reports that these incidents did not happen, some in the administration continue to repeat them to this day.
D. There are still 3 disputed claims of Iraq-Al Qaeda links. 1) The Sudan bombing in 1998, 2) The connection between Iraq and Ansar Al-Islam, an anti-Kurdish group that worked in Northern Iraq, and 3) The presence of terrorist Musab Al-Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war.
Early Contacts[/b]
These are the 1994 and 1995 meetings that are not disputed between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
There were at least 3 meetings in Sudan when Al Qaeda was first getting started in 1994 and 1995. The meetings were arranged by Sudan who was hosting Al Qaeda and who also had close ties with Iraq. An Iraqi intelligence officer met with Bin Laden during the third meeting. They met because they were both opposed to Saudi Arabia. After these meetings Iraq agreed to rebroadcast an anti-Suadi speech that bin Laden had made, but Bin Laden???s request that Iraq help with training camps and buying weapons was ignored. The intelligence community , the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 commission all believe that these meetings led to no cooperation. There are also reports that Iraqi officials may have met with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 1996, but they did not result in any cooperation.
During the Clinton administration there were conflicting reports of links between Iraq and al Qaeda. A 1998 review of Iraq called for the by National Security Council found no relationship with Iraq. In August 1988 however, Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan after Al Qaeda attacked 2 American embassies in Africa and claimed that the plans were linked to Iraq???s WMD program. They alleged that there were phone conversations between the plant and the head of Iraq???s WMD program. Clinton officials still claim that this link exists but there is no hard intelligence to prove it.
Early Bush Administration and 9/11[/b]
Early on in the Bush administration, Richard Clarke, head of Counterterrorism was shocked to find that the neoconservatives in the administration were more concerned about Iraq than Al Qaeda as a threat to the U.S., and either tried to say that Al Qaeda was not important or that it was controlled by Iraq.
In April 2001 when Richard Clarke made his first terrorism briefing to the Bush administration, Wolfowitz wanted to talk about Iraq???s support of terrorism, rather than Al Qaeda. According to Clarke, Wolfowitz said, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Wolfowitz also said, "You give bin Laden too much credit." Wolfowitz then tried to tie al Qaeda with Iraq, but Clarke told him there was no connection.
When 9/11 happened, Bush and the neoconservatives automatically assumed that Iraq was behind it, but no links were found. After that the administration referred to a long relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, probably referring to the 1994 and 1995 meetings. The administration claimed that the two had continued meetings after that, but that is disputed. Two specific examples that members of the administration brought up, have not been proven. One was that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001. This claim was refuted again and again, but Cheney still claims that it happened to this day. Wolfowitz also pushed a claim that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. His own investigation found no evidence, but Wolfowitz still argued that it happened.
Trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 happened within hours of the attack. According to CBS News within 5 hours of 9/11 Rumsfeld demanded "The best info fast. Judge whether good enough to hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein]." Rumsfeld told Pentagon lawyer to have Wolfowitz look into connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda the day of 9/11 as well.
On 9/12/01 Richard Clarke said that Bush and neoconservatives in the administration asked about a connection between the attacks and Iraq. Clarke said, "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection." Clarke told them, "There's just no connection. There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda." Bush later pulled Clarke over during a break in a National Security Council meeting and said, "I want you to find whether Iraq did this." When Clarke told Bush, "Mr. President al Qaeda did this," and "we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq," Bush "testily" urged Clarke to "Look into Iraq, Saddam." Clarke was left with the impression that Bush wanted to find a connection no matter what. Clarke and FBI experts later wrote a report finding no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The report was rejected by either Rice or her deputy Stephan Hadley, and told "Wrong answer ??? Do it again." Clarke wrote in his book, "Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to take advantage of this national tragedy [9/11] to promote their agenda about Iraq."
On 9/13/01 Wolfowitz in conference calls with officials started asking if Iraq was involved in 9/11. He also began lobbying Cheney that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that it was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
9/15/01 Bush held a national security meeting at Camp David to discuss responses to 9/11. Wolowitz estimated that there was a 10-50% chance Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that the U.S. had to go after Iraq if it was serious about the war on terror. He had no evidence to support his claim, it was pure speculation.
Bush administration tries to link Iraq with Al Qaeda[/b]
After mostly dropping the 9/11 connection, the administration changed to claiming that there had been a long relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This claim has also been disputed.
In October, 2001 the Defense Department set up its own alternative intelligence unit, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group. One of its conclusions was that divisions within the Muslim world were breaking down, and that various Islamic terrorist groups and states were all working together to attack the U.S. This allowed Iraq and al Qaeda to work together. In January, 2002 the Policy Group also made a report criticizing the CIA because it had reported contacts, but not cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Policy Group claimed that there was cooperation. The Group???s findings were presented to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, the CIA and others.
Also in October, the Iraqi National Congress tried to cash in by providing two Iraqi defectors that claimed that the 9/11 hijackers were trained in Iraq. This has not been proven.
In November, 2001 Soldiers found documents that Al Qaeda was trying to acquire WMDs in a safe house in Afghanistan. White House official, "Iraq was the easiest place they could get them from." S tatement was an assumption, based on no evidence.
Due to questioning by administration officials, CIA published report on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda on 6/21/02. It found sporadic contacts but no cooperation.
9/25/02 Bush told reporters, "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." Rice claimed there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda establishing a relationship.
10/1/02 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq said that Iraq would only give WMDs to terrorists such as al Qaeda as a "last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." It mentioned the 1994 and 1995 meetings in Sudan over their mutual hatred for Saudi government, but said that those led to nothing. There were also reports that Iraq trained al Qaeda members in bomb and poison making, but it had not been confirmed. This report was later proven false. Ironically the NIE predicted that an American attack on Iraq would lead to exactly what Bush had hoped to stop, cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
10/7/02 Bush in a speech about Iraq in Cincinnati claimed that "Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases." Bush claimed that Iraq and al Qaeda had "high-level contacts that go back a decade." Same day Tenet sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee stating that Iraq had asked Iraq for help with WMD, and also said Iraq had provided training to al Qaeda in handling WMD. Tenet also said that the chances of Iraq turning over WMDs to al Qaeda was "low, in part because it would constitute an admission that he possess" WMD. Claims of Iraq training Al Qaeda were later shown to be from questionable sources.
January 2003 the CIA made a revised report on Iraq and terrorism. The CIA said that it couldn???t make a conclusive assessment about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda because of a lack of good intelligence. In the CIA???s opinion however, Iraq did not know about 9/11 before it happened. It said that Saddam was opposed to the Saudi form of Islam, Wahabism which made contact with Al Qaeda difficult. It interviewed two senior Al Qaeda leaders in U.S. custody, Abu Zubaydah, Al Qaeda's haed of training and recruiting, and Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, 9/11 planner, on Iraqi connections. They said that there was no alliance. The report reviewed claims that there had been contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda since the ones in Sudan, but found that the reports were not all reliable and many came from foreign governments and exile groups that were biased. The CIA found that reports of Iraqi training of Al Qaeda turned out to be Al Qaeda asking for training, but they found no evidence that it had ever happened. There were uncorroborated reports that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda operatives at Salman Pak counterterrorism training camp. One source came from the INC and he exaggerated his story and others just repeated the INC defector. (The July 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-war Iraqi intelligence found no Al Qaeda sources that claimed they had been trained at Salman Pak.) There were also reports that Iraq had offered safe haven to Bin Laden in 1998 and 1999 although one of those reports also said that Iraq had rejected the offer. The CIA found no connection between Iraq and the December, 2002 assassination of USAD officer Foleyin in Jordan. Also said that Iraq had not cooperated in any Al Qaeda terrorist attacks. In the end, the report said that Iraq might use terrorism if attacked, but it had no intelligence to support this claim.
In Powell???s 2/5/03 U.N. speech he claimed that in the early to mid-1990s Al Qaeda and Iraq had agreed to a nonagression pact, since then the two had met at least 8 times. Bin Laden met with head of Iraqi intelligence. Iraq sent agents to Afghanistan to train Al Qaeda in forging documents. Claimed in 2000 Iraq offered to give 2 al Qaeda operatives WMD training, but didn't know if it was followed up. The claim that Iraq had given WMD training to Iraq was actually false. It was based upon an Iraqi National Congress defector interviewed by the Defense Intelligence Agency, who later changed his story when interviewed by the CIA. He told the CIA he had trained Saddam???s Fedayeen, not al Qaeda, and he never dealt with WMD. The nonagression pact could also not be proved.
2/11/03 Tenet testified to Senate Intelligence Committee claiming Iraq had trained 2 al Qaeda operatives in forgery, bomb making and WMD. Claim was not based upon any new intelligence. Next day he told the Committee that the CIA did not find Iraq controlling al Qaeda, it could show that there were contacts, training and safe havens.
More recently, the 6/16/04 preliminary report of the 9/11 commission found contacts, but no cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
No Connections, but the Administration won???t give up[/b]
Beginning in the Fall of 2001 after 9/11 officials tried to confirm whether Mohammad Atta, head of the 9/11 hijackers, had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in April 2001. CIA & FBI both claimed that it could not have happened and that Atta was in Florida 2 days before the alleged meeting. The meeting was refuted several more times.
January 2003 revised CIA report on ???Iraqi Support for Terrorism??? said that Atta never met with Iraqis.
2/24/04 Tenet told Congress the CIA couldn???t prove the Atta meeting one way or the other.
6/16/04 preliminary report of the 9/11 Commission said that the Atta meeting never took place.
7/1/04 Tenet sent letter to Congress saying that it was unlikely that Atta met with Iraqis.
Despite the lack of support, the administration and others continued to claim that the Atta meeting happened.
October 2001 Jim Woolsey former CIA director under Clinton, wrote Op. Ed. Piece for Wall Street Journal claiming that Mohamed Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence in Czech Republic as evidence that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
Late 2001 William Safire wrote column in New York Times claiming Atta met with Iraqi intelligence and claiming that this was "the undisputed fact connecting Iraq's Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks."
12/9/01 Cheney told Meet The Press, "It's been pretty well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
September 2002 Wolfowitz and other Pentagon officials met with FBI's assistant director for counterterrorism, Pat D'Amuro about reported meeting between Mohamed Atta and Iraqi intelligence. D???Amuro said there was no evidence that it happened. Wolfowitz pressured D'Amuro to acknowledge that the meeting was at least possible.
On 7/22/02 the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group was creating its briefing for administration officials on its findings of Iraq-Al Qaeda links. It had a slide claiming that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence. Not only that but the briefing claimed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had actively collaborated on 9/11 and WMD. Because of these connections, the Group advocated attacking Iraq. As stated above, this briefing was made to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, the CIA and others in late 2002.
Later on in an intelligence meeting on 8/20/02 the Policy Group argued for inclusion of the Atta claim in an intelligence report, but they were rebuffed.
The White House tried to get Powell to include the Atta claim in his 2/5/03 speech to the U.N. but Powell threw it out as unverified. Cheney???s chief of staff I.Lewis Libby even called up Powell???s office either the day before or day of the speech to try to get the Atta claim put back in Powell???s speech but it was no included.
More recently, on 6/17/04 Cheney told CNBCs Capitol Report that there was overwhelming evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda and uses the Atta meeting as evidence.
On 7/8/04 Senator Levin made public Tenet???s letter saying that the Atta meeting didn???t happen and Cheney???s staff turned around and blamed the CIA, saying that everything Cheney says about Al Qaeda-Iraqi links is based upon CIA briefings.
Remaining questions about links[/b]
A still disputed link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is the role of Ansar al-Islam. Ansar was an anti-Kurd Islamic group in Kurdish Iraq who was affiliated with Al Qaeda. Some believe that while the Iraqi government knew what the Ansar group was doing, the two were not connected because Iraq had no real authority in the Kurdish north. During the war, Ansar fled into Iran, for example, rather than South into the Sunni part of Iraq. Others believe that since the group was operating in Iraq it was supported by Saddam and is used as an example of cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq.
Another point of contention is Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. He is currently the head of the Islamic insurgents in Iraq. He had been living in Baghdad since before the war and is an associate of Al Qaeda. Like Ansar, people claim that this was evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, because the Iraqi government must have known about his presence and allowed him to stay.
End of August 2002 Rumsfeld claimed, "There are al-Qaeda in a number of locations in Iraq,??? and "It's very hard to imagine the government is not aware of what's taking place in the country."
September 2002 CIA report said al Qaeda looking to gain WMD from Iraq. Was probably a reference to Ansar Al-Islam.
9/2/02 Pentagon official claimed that dozens of middle leve al-Qaeda operatives fled to Iraq after Afghanistan war. Intelligence community claimed that these al-Qaeda operatives were based in Kurdish North where Iraq has no presence. "The al-Qaeda people are not official guests of the Iraqi government," according to senior intelligence official.
In Bush???s 10/7/02 speech in Cincinnati he mentioned the Zarqawi claim, but did not name him. Bush: "A very senior al-Qaeda leader received medical treatment in Baghdad this year."
In the CIA???s January, 2003 report on Iraq and terrorism, Al Qaeda head of training and recruiting, Abu Zubaydah, now in U.S. custody, said that Abu Musab Zarqawi had a good relationship with Iraq, but that bin Laden would not have agreed to an alliance with Iraq. The CIA said that since May 2002 Abu Zarqawi had been in Baghdad with Iraqi knowledge, and that 100-200 al Qaeda operatives had joined Ansar Al-Islam in the Kurdish north in the Fall of 2001 after the Afghan war. Iraq knew about presence and probably allowed it.
In Powell???s 2/5/03 U.N. speech he said that Iraq continued to maintain Al Qaeda operative Abu Musab Zarqawai who headed an Al Qaeda cell in Baghdad along with 12 other Al Qaeda operatives. Powell claimed that Ansar Al-Islam was proof that there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
Before the war, intelligence community had concluded that Zarqawi was not an al Qaeda member, but a leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occassional associated with al Qaeda.
Overall, I think the intelligence community was vary cautious in their reports about Iraq and Al Qaeda. Unlike their reporting on Iraq???s WMD, they also noted the problems with their sources and made cautious opinions rather than stating facts. While there are still 3 questionable ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda (the Sudan factory, Ansar Islam and Zarqawi) the intelligence community still found no evidence that Iraq had supported or cooperated in any Al Qaeda attacks. For the last two, it just seems like Iraq let them stay there but didn???t help them with anything.
I also believe that the Bush administration had a set of anti-Iraq biases that shaped their views as can be seen in their jumping on Iraq before and right after 9/11. I also think the administration exaggerated claims about Iraq-Al Qaeda links to get the public behind their policy. For example, from statements made by Dick Cheney on the Atta-Iraqi meeting, I think he felt that since the intelligence community couldn???t prove that the meeting DIDN???T happen, then he would keep on saying it and continues to this day. Likewise, Wolfowitz couldn???t find any evidence that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but he continued to argue that it was true. The administration also put pressure on the intelligence community to find such links. The Senate Intelligence Committee???s 1st report said they found no evidence, but co-chair Senator Rockefeller believed there was pressure, and former Deputy Director of CIA Richard J. Kerr as part of a CIA initiated review of prewar intelligence testified to Congress on 7/1/03 that there was constant pressure by the administration on the CIA to find links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
I also think that it???s ironic that the Bush administration got exactly what they said they were trying to stop. Now there are Al Qaeda operatives active in Iraq attacking and killing Americans, and it gave Bin Laden the exact kind of propaganda opportunity he wanted to prove his point that the U.S. is trying to destroy Muslims.
Iraq had links with terrorists[/b]
A. The groups Iraq had contacts were with were mostly Palestinians that had not been active since the early 1990s.
B. Intelligence reports said that Iraq wouldn't use terrorist groups because it would probably lead to a U.S. attack.
C. If Iraq wanted to carry out terrorist attacks it would use its own intelligence service, not a terrorist group.
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 believe d that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing although the intelligence community does 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.
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 mostly 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, I think the argument that Iraq had ties to terrorists was weak. I don???t think there is a single Arab country that doesn???t support the Palestinians. The actual Palestinian terrorist groups that Iraq did support were basically inactive for almost 10 years. The opinion that Iraq would use its own intelligence service if pushed also came true as can be seen in the current insurgency.
Looks well researched & factually driven as opposed to irrational rhetoric.
Good to see some intelligent rational heads up on here.
We all love records, but surely we all love life even more.
No reason why it shouldn't be discussed here or anywhere.