|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
.....I understand the view of those who did not think we had the right to invade Iraq and then occupy the country. I also understand the dilemma with reconciling the concept of preemptive war with national defense as outlined in the Constitution. I think these two issues are still very compelling for discussion. We just can not seem to get off of the question about Bush being deceptive or not.
|
ace, I propose a compromise....I've quote you several times here, all from your posts over on "Obama Must Go to Iraq" thread. The series of quotes begins with you providing "data"....an IBD editorial. Aside from a repetitive list displaying a given year, followed by "There were no terrorist attacks", there were only a couple of assertions, with any specific "data". This was one:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ta#post2459446
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Perhaps he should go just to show he has no fear or concerns about going. Often, visits, orchestrated or not are not for the benefit of the person visiting, but for those who are there. Also, he thinks we are not safer because of the war in Iraq, I think the facts are not consistent with that view.
Here is some data from todays IBD editorial page:
Quote:
Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the U.S. and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.
Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful.
What follows is a partial history:....
....Here is the record:
2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government....
|
http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...96864997227353 |
Then, ace, you asked if your data was accurate:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ta#post2459482
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Is the data accurate? If not how?
The point is not the editorial view of the data, but the data. I know there are different way to look at this question. At what point do you want to focus on that rather than the ad hominem argument.
Been through this. I read IBD daily. I enjoy the way they craft their editorials, they are fun to read. I generally agree with their point of view. I have found that data in the paper and on the editorial page to be accurate.
Do you have anything new regarding IBD? I am going to read the paper again tomorrow, if I come across something that I think will be of interest - guess what - I am going to post it. Your complaints, ad hominem arguments, and personal attacks wont matter. Come on, I know you have it in you - you can do better.
|
ace, over on the "Obama Must Go to Iraq" thread, directly above this post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ta#post2459604
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
.....I am guilty of "cherry picking". When I support my opinions I purposefully pick the data that supports my opinion. When I form my opinion I look at data from various sources and generally give more weight to data that supports my biases. When my opinion is challenged with data that contradicts my opinion, I consider it and either change my view or I "cherry pick" more information to present, that of course supports my view.
I must be the only one who does this. I am guilty, I tell you, guilty, guilty, guilty. What should my punishment be? 
Or, you folks can give me your data, challenge my views, man-up and debate like I know you are capable. Maybe it is just to easy to attack the source, rather than the information.
This is for you Host. this was in IBD a few days ago.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...96780190323947 |
....I posted this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
ace, even president Bush admits that there is no proof of this, from your IBD editorial's "data"....
Quote:
2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.
|
I've posted both of these, over and over....have they made no impact on you, ace? |
....So ace, I replied with what you said you wanted...I specifically challenged one of your data points....and you ignored my challenge. Now, I'm back ace, and the deal is.... We Agree to Play, "Stop Me When You Think You Can Establish That I Am Wrong...."
If I had read the IBD editorial you posted ace, and I saw the attempt in it to link al Zarqawi to Saddam and his government, an alarm would have gone off. The following is what we know ace. We know enough to firmly state that only an extremist would write that "data point" in that IBD editorial, because only an extremist, Cheney, has even recently tried to make that connection. Bush himself was stopped cold...he's never attempted it again....watch the video in the bottom quoite box. I've detailed all of their lies that I can locate and link on this one subject ace, but you might call them "misleading statements". I've detailed findings on how they came into being....the WaPo provides a nice explanation in the lower part of the following quote box.
I am expecting ace, that you will stop me, too when you can establish that my posted facts are not in order. Also, ace, notice that, in the first few sentences in the following quote box, the SSCI establishes that congress did not have access to "the same intelligence" that the white house was privy to, before the October, 2002 congressional vote to authorize presidential authority to use military force:
2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq:
Quote:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...-301/sec12.pdf
XII. IRAQ’S LINKS TO TERRORISM A. Intelligence Products Concerning Iraq’s Links to Terrorism (U) The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) produced five primary finished intelligence products on Iraq’s links to terrorism: 0 a September 2001 paper; 0 an October 2001 paper; Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship, June 2002; 0 Iraqi Supportfor Terrorism, September 2002 and Iraqi Supportfor Terrorism, January 2003. B. September and October 2001 Papers
(U) Shortly after the September 11,2001 terrorist attacks, the Director of Central Intelligence’s (DCI) Counterterrorism Center (CTC) and the CIA Near East and South Asia office (NESA)37collaborated on a paper on Iraqi links to the September 1lth attacks. This was the CIA’S first attempt to summarize the Iraqi regime’sties to 9/11. The paper was disseminated to President’s Daily Brief (PDB) principals on September 2 1,2001. The Committee was not informed about the existence of this paper until June 2004. According to the CIA, the paper took a “Q&A” approach to the issue of Iraq’s possible links to the September 1lth attacks. (U) Soon afterward, the NESA drafted a paper that broadened the scope of the issue by looking at Iraq’s overall ties to terrorism. The Committee requested a copy of this October 2001 document, but representatives of the DCI declined to provide it, stating: . . .we are declining to provide a copy of the paper. It was drafted in response to a request from a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) recipient, and the final paper was 37 TheNear East and South Asia (NESA) is the CIA Directorate of Intelligence (DI) office responsible for analyzing events in the Near East, including Iraq. Page -304 -
disseminated only to the PDB readership. Accordingly, it is not available for further di~sernination.~~ C. Iraq and al-Qaidu: Interpreting a Murky Relationship, June 2002
(U) Following the publication of the October 2001 paper, the CTC began drafting another paper that would eventually become Iraq and al-Qaidu: Interpreting a Murky Relationship. The paper was drafted based on widely expressed interest on the part of several senior policy makers, according to CIA. Throughout the drafting process (October 2001 to June 2002), the two offices took different approaches to assessing Iraq’s links to terrorism as a result of their different missions and perspectives. According to the CIA’SOmbudsman for Politicization, the CTC was aggressive in drawing connections to try to produce informationthat could be used to support counterterrorism operations,while the NESA took a traditional analytic approach, confirming intelligence with multiple sources and making assessments only based on strongly supported reporting. Analysts worked on several drafts over the eight month drafting period, but CTC management found them unsatisfactory and ultimately produced a draft without NESA’s coordination. (U) The Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) directed that Iraq and ul-Qaida: Interpreting u Murky ReZutionshiy be published on June 21,2002, although it did not reflect the NESA’s views. CTC’s explanation of its approach to this study and the analysts’ differing views were contained in the paper’s Scope Note, which stated: (U) This intelligence assessment responds to senior policymaker interest in a comprehensive assessment of Iraqi regime links to al-Qa’ida. Our approach is purposehlly aggressive in seeking to draw connections, on the assumptionthat any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States. ’*The President’s Daily Brief (PDB) has not been provided to Congress inthe past by the executive branch. Committee staff notes, however, that the National Commission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United States (known as the 9-1 1 Commission) reached an agreement with the White House for access to the PDB and other intelligence items. The declination to provide the October 2001 CIA paper is an expansion of the historic practice to include other documents beyond the PDB. The CIA has provided the Committee items included in the PDB as long as they were also published separately as fmished intelligence or in other finished products. -305 -
Page 306
(U) We reviewed intelligence reporting over the past decade to determine whether Iraq had a relationship with aI-Qa’ida and, if so, the dimensions of the relationship. -1 Our knowledge of Iraqi links to al-Qa’ida still contains many critical gaps (U) Some analysts concur with the assessment that intelligence reporting provides “no conclusive evidence of cooperation on specific terrorist operations,”but believe that the available signs support a conclusionthat Iraq has had sporadic, wary contacts with al-Qaida since the mid-1990s, rather than a relationship with al-Qaida that has developed over time. These analysts would contend that mistrust and conflicting ideologies and goals probably tempered these contacts and severely limited the opportunities for cooperation. These analysts do not rule out that Baghdad sought and obtained a nonaggression agreement or made limited offers of cooperation,training, or even safehaven (ultimately uncorroborated or withdrawn) in an effort to manipulate, penetrate, or otherwise keep tabs on al-Qaida or selected operatives. (U) The NESA believed that this edited Scope Note did not adequately capture the differences between the two offices over the weighing and interpretationof the supporting intelligence reports. (U) The CIA Ombudsman for Politicization received a confidential complaint four days after the paper was published, on June 25,2002, claiming the CTC paper was misleading, in that it did not make clear that it was an uncoordinated product that did not reflect the NESA’s views and assessments. The CIA created the position of Ombudsman for Politicization in 1992 to respond to alleged issues of politicization and analytic distortion. According to the Ombudsman’s Charter, the position serves as an “independent, informal, and confidential counselor for those who have complaints about politicization, biased reporting, or the lack of objective analysis.” The Ombudsman reports directly to the DCI. The complaint and subsequent inquiry is discussed later in this report under Pressure on Intelligence Community Analysts. (U) The Committee Staff interviewed the Deputy Director for Intelligence on the production of this paper, and asked specifically why the analysts’ approach was purposefully aggressive. She explained that:
Page 307
What happened with the “murky paper” was I was asking the people who were writing it to lean far forward and do a speculative piece. If you were going to stretch to the maximum the evidence you had, what could you come up with?.....
D. Alternate Analysis in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defensefor Policy
...... <h3>(U) One of these consultants stated that he was told that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Secretary of Defense were dissatisfied with the intelligence products they were receiving from the Intelligence Community on terrorism and linkages between terrorist groups worldwide.</h3> This individual also stated that he and a colleague had gone to the CTC and to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to review what work they were doing on link analysis and relationshipsbetween terrorist groups and state sponsors. They found that the analysis was not being done, and stated that they believed their requests for assistance were being ignored....
.....(U) On July 22,2002, the DIA detailee sent an e-mail to a Deputy Under Secretary for Policy recounting a meeting that day with a senior advisor to the Under Secretary. The e-mail reported that the senior advisor had said that the Deputy Secretary had told an assistant that he wanted him “. . . to prepare an intel briefing on Iraq and links to al-Qaida for the SecDef and that he was not to tell anyone about it.” The e-mail also referred to “the Iraqi intelligence cell in OUSD(P).” The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy later explained to the Committee that the term “intelligence cell” referred to the PCTEG and other OSD staffers and their study of intelligence reports.
(U) Incorporating the DIA detailee’s work and the analysis done by the two naval reserve officers assigned to the PCTEG, a special assistant from the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense created a set of briefing slides in the summer of 2002 that outlined the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) views of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida and criticized the Intelligence Community (IC) for its approach to the issue.
(U) The briefing slides contained a “Summary of Known Iraq -al-Qaida Contacts, 1990-2002,” including an item “2001: Prague IIS Chief al-hi meets with Mohammed Atta in April.” Another slide was entitled “FundamentalProblems with How Intelligence Community is Assessing Information.” It faulted the IC for requiring “juridical evidence” for its findings. It also criticized the IC for “consistent underestimation”of efforts by Iraq and al-Qaida to hide their relationship and for an “assumption that secularists and Islamists will not cooperate.” A “findings” slide summed up the Iraq -al-Qaida relationship as “More than a decade of numerous contacts,” “Multiple areas of cooperation,” “Shared interest and pursuit of WMD,” and “One indication of Iraq coordination with al-Qaida specificallyrelated to 9/ 11.”
(U) One of the naval reservists from the PCTEG and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) detailee to the Policy Support Staff presented the briefing, which was developed by the special assistant from the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, to the Secretary of Defense in early August 2002.
(U) After the briefing, the Deputy Secretary sent a note to the briefers, the Under Secretary and the Under Secretary’s Special Advisor, which included: That was an excellent briefing. The Secretary was very impressed. He asked us to think about some possible next steps to see if we can illuminate the differences between us and CIA. The goal is not to produce a consensus product, but rather to scrub one another’s arguments. Page -309 -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...502263_pf.html
Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 6, 2007; A01
Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.
The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.
The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.
"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.
The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.
Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.
"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."
The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general's report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.
The CIA was not alone, the defense report emphasized. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had concluded that year that "available reporting is not firm enough to demonstrate an ongoing relationship" between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, it said.
But the contrary conclusions reached by Feith's office -- and leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard magazine before the war -- were publicly praised by Cheney as the best source of information on the topic, a circumstance the Pentagon report cites in documenting the impact of what it described as "inappropriate" work......
|
Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/...1105979&page=2
Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief
Former Secretary of State Speaks Out on Being Loyal -- and Being Wrong
....When Walters pressed Powell about that support, given the "mess" that the invasion has yielded, Powell said, "Who knew what the whole mess was going to be like?"
While he said he is glad that Saddam's regime was toppled, Powell acknowledged that he has seen no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorist attack. "I have never seen a connection. ... I can't think otherwise because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he told Walters. ....
|
Quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...q-report_x.htm
Senate Intelligence report finds no Saddam-al-Qaeda
Updated 9/9/2006 4:37 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AP) — Saddam Hussein rejected overtures from al-Qaeda and believed Islamic extremists were a threat to his regime, a reverse portrait of an Iraq allied with Osama bin Laden painted by the Bush White House, a Senate panel has found.
The administration's version was based in part on intelligence that White House officials knew was flawed, according to Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing newly declassified documents released by the panel.
The report, released Friday, discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phase...y.pdf#page=112
As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, President Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."
Democrats singled out CIA Director George Tenet, saying that during a private meeting in July Tenet told the panel that the White House pressured him and that he agreed to back up the administration's case for war despite his own agents' doubts about the intelligence it was based on.
"Tenet admitted to the Intelligence Committee that the policymakers wanted him to 'say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said,'" Intelligence Committee member Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters Friday.
Tenet also told the committee that complying had been "the wrong thing to do," according to Levin.
"Well, it was much more than that," Levin said. "It was a shocking abdication of a CIA director's duty not to act as a shill for any administration or its policy."....
|
Cheney, on the very next day:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
September 10, 2006
Interview of the Vice President by Tim Russert, NBC News, Meet the Press
NBC Studios
Washington, D.C.
......Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate intel committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Q But the President said they were working in concert, giving the strong suggestion to the American people that they were involved in September 11th.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, they are -- there are two totally different propositions here. And people have consistently tried to confuse them. And it's important, I think -- there's a third proposition, as well, too, and that is Iraq's traditional position as a strong sponsor of terror.
So you've got Iraq and 9/11: no evidence that there's a connection.<b> You've got Iraq and al Qaeda: testimony from the Director of CIA that there was, indeed, a relationship; Zarqawi in Baghdad, et cetera. Then the --
Q The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact, Saddam --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't seen the report. I haven't had a chance to read it yet --</b>
Q But, Mr. Vice President, the bottom line is --
<b>THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- but the fact is, we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02, and was there from then basically until the time we launched into Iraq. ........</b>
<h3>...and Cheney wasn't done...a month later, he was "at it", again:</h3>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...061019-10.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 19, 2006
Satellite Interview of the Vice President by WSBT-TV, South Bend, Indiana
2nd Congressional District -
Representative Chris Chocola
........Q Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni......
<h3>...and Cheney STILL wasn't done...six months later, he was "at it", again:</h3>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html
April 5, 2007
....So those are very real problems and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point seems to me simply would play right into the hands of al Qaeda.
Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about -- just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. ..
<h3>...and Cheney STILL wasn't done...two months later, he was "at it", again:</h3>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20070603.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
June 3, 2007
Vice President's Remarks at the Wyoming Boys State Conference
The Vice President:....The worst terrorist we had in Iraq was a guy named Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian by birth; served time in a Jordanian prison as a terrorist, was let out on amnesty. Then he went to Afghanistan and ran one of those training camps back in the late '90s that trained terrorists. Then when we launched into Afghanistan after 9/11, he was wounded, and fled to Baghdad for medical treatment, and then set up shop in Iraq. So he operated in Jordan, he operated in Afghanistan, then he moved to Iraq....
|
History of Bush's lies and distortions about al Zarqawi and his relationship with Saddam's government:
Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=130169
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130169&page=1
Bush Calls Off Attack on Poison Gas Lab
Calls Off Operation to Take Out Al Qaeda-Sponsored Poison Gas Lab
By John McWethy
W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 20 (2002)
President Bush called off a planned covert raid into northern Iraq late last week that was aimed at a small group of al Qaeda operatives who U.S. intelligence officials believed were experimenting with poison gas and deadly toxins, according to administration officials....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002
...We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 6, 2003
President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment"
.....Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. The head of this network traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment and stayed for months. Nearly two dozen associates joined him there and have been operating in Baghdad for more than eight months.
The same terrorist network operating out of Iraq is responsible for the murder, the recent murder, of an American citizen, an American diplomat, Laurence Foley. The same network has plotted terrorism against France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Republic of Georgia, and Russia, and was caught producing poisons in London.....
http://web.archive.org/web/200304012...?bid=3&pid=371
Capital Games By David Corn
Powell's One Good Reason To Bomb Iraq--UPDATED
02/06/2003 @ 12:12am
.....But here's the first question that struck me after Powell's presentation:
why hasn't the United States bombed the so-called Zarqawi camp shown in the slide? The administration obviously knows where it is, and Powell spoke of it in the present tense.
http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=8&gl=us
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Feb 7, 2003 by GREG MILLER
SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ
Why not hit terrorist camp?
Lawmakers question lack of military action
By GREG MILLER Los Angeles Times
Friday, February 7, 2003
Washington -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where al-Qaida affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with explosives and poisons.
"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "Why have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"
Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.
"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in there and come out of there," Powell said.
Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested the administration had refrained from striking the compound in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.
"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified.
But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030208.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 8, 2003
President's Radio Address
.... Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.
We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. ....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030306-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 6, 2003
President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
,,,,THE PRESIDENT: ,...Colin Powell, in an eloquent address to the United Nations, described some of the information we were at liberty of talking about. He mentioned a man named Al Zarqawi, who was in charge of the poison network. He's a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was harbored in Iraq. There is a poison plant in Northeast Iraq. To assume that Saddam Hussein knew none of this was going on is not to really understand the nature of the Iraqi society.....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040617-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 17, 2004
... THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two.
I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections -- not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations; Abu Nidal was one. He was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is still killing innocent inside of Iraq.
No, he was a threat, and the world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power. ....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040618-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 18, 2004
President Bush Salutes Soldiers in Fort Lewis, Washington
Remarks by the President to the Military Personnel
Fort Lewis, Washington
.....And we're beginning to see results of people stepping up to defend themselves. Iraqi police and Civil Defense Corps have captured several wanted terrorists, including Umar Boziani. He was a key lieutenant of this killer named Zarqawi who's ordering the suiciders inside of Iraq. By the way,
''he was the fellow who was in Baghdad at times prior to our arrival. He was operating out of Iraq. He was an Al Qaeda associate.
See, he was there before we came. He's there after we came. And we'll find him.''.....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040923-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 23, 2004
President Bush and Prime Minister Allawi Press Conference
...PRESIDENT BUSH: Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein were still in power. This is a man who harbored terrorists -- Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi.....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2006
THE PRESIDENT:..We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. .....but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
Press Conference by the President
August 21, 2006.
the President:...... who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
Press Gaggle Spetember 12, 2006
.....Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?
MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.
Q There was a link --
MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.
Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?
MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it. ....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
Press Conference by the President September 15, 2006
Watch the video: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/15/bush-zarqawi-iraq/
THE PRESIDENT:....Martha.
Q Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And, yet, a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?
THE PRESIDENT: The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....
|
Lastly, ace....if the rationale for invading and occupying Iraq is as strong and straightforward as you maintain, why do you think they spewed all the disingenuous bullshit of the example of Zarqawi....it seemed be the "go to" example, offered by both Bush and Cheney, for invading and occupying Iraq.
Last edited by host; 06-02-2008 at 05:35 PM..
|