Bush Planned to Invade Iraq in 2001,Says Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 08-22-2005, 03:16 AM

Goodness....so many developments lately seem to merit their own threads...

Add Trent Lott, senator from MS, who was the Republican leader of the senate in 2001, to the growing number of people who have publicly stated that president Bush planned to invade Iraq before spring, 2002, before "the facts were made to fit the policy". He said on Sunday, Aug. 21, on NBC's
"Meet the Press",

The three quote boxes below the Trent Lott quote box, are
A.) CIA director Tenet quoted on Feb. 7, 2001, telling a congressional committee that "There are still constraints on Saddam's power. His economic infrastructure is in long-term decline, and his ability to project power outside Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. His military is roughly half the size it was during the Gulf War and remains under a tight arms embargo. He has trouble efficiently moving forces and supplies-a direct result of sanctions."
The quote is displayed on the US Embassy in Italy's website.

B.)Secretary of State Powell, also in Feb. 2001, said, "but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors"
The quote is from a webpage on the US State Dept. website.

C.)Six months later, and just two or three months before the time of Trent Lott's disclosure of Bush's comments about the "threat from Iraq", on July 29, 2001, NSA advisor Condie Rice is quoted saying the following in a transcript displayed on the CNN news website,

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that"

D.) The quote box following the one containing the Condi Rice quote, is a May 5, 2002, report on the Time magazine website that contains the following:
"......in late March. The Vice President dropped by a Senate Republican policy lunch soon after his 10-day tour of the Middle East — the one meant to drum up support for a U.S. military strike against Iraq. As everyone in the room well knew, his mission had been thrown off course by the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. But Cheney hadn't lost focus. Before he spoke, he said no one should repeat what he said, and Senators and staff members promptly put down their pens and pencils. Then he gave them some surprising news. The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when......Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe."

E.) The second to last quote box that I've posted here is from a pre-invasion of Iraq (March 17, 2003), speech, displayed on a page on the whitehouse website that includes Bush's assurance that, "the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war"

It is in the above context that Mr. Gregory, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press", responded with the following to Trent Lott's disclosure,
"MR. GREGORY: He has described going to war in Iraq as the last resort that was a war of necessity. Are you suggesting here that, in fact, before much of the diplomacy had begun, that the president thought or believed in his mind that war was an inevitability?"

I invite a furtherance of our ongoing discussion on this forum as to whether or not the accumulating body of evidence has grown to the point that it is no longer possible to defend Bush's statement that "every measure has been taken to avoid war", or that the war was launched because Bush and his administration's leaders earnestly believed that Saddam suddenly posed an "imminent threat to the security of the U.S.

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926876/
Meet the Press Transcript for August 21

...........MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to something that you wrote in your book about Iraq and put it on the screen: "In the summer of 2002...the president began lobbying for an open-ended resolution empowering him to wage war on Iraq.... Bush had made clear his intentions to wage war on Iraq in several of our private meetings."

What are you speaking about precisely, Senator?

SEN. LOTT: Well, beginning in August that year and into the fall--in fact, beginning not too long after 9/11--as we had leadership meetings at breakfast with the president, he would go around the world and talk about what was going on, where the threats were, where the dangers were, and even in private discussions, it was clear to me that he thought Iraq was a destabilizing force, was a danger and a growing danger, and that we were going to have to deal with that problem.

MR. GREGORY: He has described going to war in Iraq as the last resort that was a war of necessity. Are you suggesting here that, in fact, before much of the diplomacy had begun, that the president thought or believed in his mind that war was an inevitability?

SEN. LOTT: How can I say what was in his mind? But I..

MR. GREGORY: Based on your conversations.

SEN. LOTT: I think he was very much concerned about Saddam Hussein and the--what he was doing to his people and to his neighbors and the threat of, you know, weapons of mass destruction. And, by the way, the intelligence that he was getting, I was getting much of the same. So if there were errors there, we should look to the--you know, where that intelligence came from. But I--but the short answer to your question--I think that he felt like we were going to have to deal with the problem before some of the diplomatic efforts occurred, and I don't mean that critically. But it was my impression.

MR. GREGORY: Was there a singular focus on weapons of mass destruction in all of your conversations?

SEN. LOTT: It was clearly a part of the discussions, you know, both in leadership meetings and intelligence briefings and in meetings with the president. We had every reason to believe that they had weapons of mass destruction. There were other factors. I mean, we did feel like, and he felt like, they were being counterproductive, certainly, you know, destructive in the Middle East, when he's giving awards to suicide murderers, you know, they're killing innocent men, women and children in the Middle East and Israel and Palestine. Some...

MR. GREGORY: But it's clear that the focus of the lobbying of you and others had to do with weapons of mass destruction and not terrorism or not the goal of democracy.

SEN. LOTT: I think that there are--obviously those other things were discussed, the concern that terrorism would be fed directly or indirectly over a period of time by Iraq and Saddam Hussein. But weapons of mass destruction clearly was a focus, not in lobbying, but intelligence. The briefings we had- -and I remember from the CIA and from the administration officials, we looked at evidence that we had. We were concerned about a number of things. And it wasn't just that you would do it on the basis of this, evidence of that. The collage was extremely scary, frankly. ...........

Quote:

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
07 February 2001

Text: CIA's Tenet on Worldwide Threat 2001
.............IRAQ

Mr. Chairman, in Iraq Saddam Hussein has grown more confident in his ability to hold on to his power. He maintains a tight handle on internal unrest, despite the erosion of his overall military capabilities. Saddam's confidence has been buoyed by his success in quieting the Shia insurgency in the south, which last year had reached a level unprecedented since the domestic uprising in 1991. Through brutal suppression, Saddam's multilayered security apparatus has continued to enforce his authority and cultivate a domestic image of invincibility.

High oil prices and Saddam's use of the oil-for-food program have helped him manage domestic pressure. The program has helped meet the basic food and medicine needs of the population. High oil prices buttressed by substantial illicit oil revenues have helped Saddam ensure the loyalty of the regime's security apparatus operating and the few thousand politically important tribal and family groups loyal.

There are still constraints on Saddam's power. His economic infrastructure is in long-term decline, and his ability to project power outside Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. His military is roughly half the size it was during the Gulf War and remains under a tight arms embargo. He has trouble efficiently moving forces and supplies-a direct result of sanctions. These difficulties were demonstrated most recently by his deployment of troops to western Iraq last fall, which were hindered by a shortage of spare parts and transport capability........

Quote:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

(lower paragraph of second Powell quote on the page)
.............but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.................

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html

...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 5, 2002

............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week...............

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...mep.saddam.tm/
First Stop, Iraq

By Michael Elliott and James Carney
Monday, March 24, 2003 Posted: 5:49 PM EST (2249 GMT)

How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda -- and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order

"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.

Quote:

http//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html.............
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2003

President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall

.................... The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.....................

................ Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it.................

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030131-23.html
THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam.

<h4>Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.</h4>

Update.....this just appeared when I searched news.google:

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/22/...omacy-started/
................As David Gregory (of "Meet the Press") notes, this runs completely counter to how President Bush describes the decision to invade Iraq:

“I want to share something with you. Committing troops into harm’s way is — in harm’s way is the most difficult decision a President can make. That decision must always be last resort. That decision must be done when our vital interests are at stake, but after we’ve tried everything else.” [President Bush, 8/5/04]

“The use of force has been — and remains — our last resort.” [President Bush, 5/1/03]

“But a President must always be willing to use troops…as a last resort… I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq… So we use diplomacy every chance we get — believe me.” [President Bush, 10/1/04]

“As a last resort, we have turned to our military.” [President Bush, 4/16/03]

“As a matter of fact, military action is the very last resort for us… this nation is very reluctant to use military force. We try to enforce doctrine peacefully, or through alliances or multinational forums. And we will continue to do so.” [President Bush, 10/28/03]

President Bush keeps saying this because he knows Americans expect him to pursue all other options before U.S. troops are put at risk. If Sen. Lott says is right, President Bush failed to meet that basic expectation.

Where are the expressions of outrage?.....on this board.....in this country...or....from the families of our war dead and maimed?

ObieX · 08-22-2005, 12:06 PM

There was a nice NOVA special about the war and it went on to describe how we had troops and tanks that had been moving in Iraq and planes had been bombing targets for many months before the war was started. By the time the war started we already had control over about 1/3rd of the country. They call it "softening up the target" i call it invasion. And what about approval of the American people? Sitting before the UN and this country trying to make the case for war, in the mean time the war is already going (who cares, right?).

reconmike · 08-22-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

There was a nice NOVA special about the war and it went on to describe how we had troops and tanks that had been moving in Iraq and planes had been bombing targets for many months before the war was started. By the time the war started we already had control over about 1/3rd of the country. They call it "softening up the target" i call it invasion. And what about approval of the American people? Sitting before the UN and this country trying to make the case for war, in the mean time the war is already going (who cares, right?).

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the war with Iraq had never officially ended so how were we there before the war started?

Seens kind of hard to do if you ask me.

And Host so what if GW had planed to do this, I believe he was looking to do the thing that Slick Willie didnt have the balls to do, and that was enforce the terms of a cease fire.
Which I can cut and paste if you like along with UN resoultion 1441 if you need me to.

Charlatan · 08-22-2005, 12:43 PM

Seriously... if that was his reason (and yes we've all read the document) then why didn't the Bush Administration just come out and say, "The reason we are doing this is because Iraq has broken with UN resoultion 1441".

Why bother trying to link Iraq to WMD, to 9/11, to terrorists in general. Why bother saying, "we are doing this to liberate the people of Iraq"?

The reason is: UN resoultion 1441 is not the reason.

reconmike · 08-22-2005, 12:59 PM

Well Charlatan WMD is the reason he broke the cease-fire, by dicking with UN inspectors and by throwing them out of Iraq he violated the terms of it.

Terrorists? Known fact he made payments to Palestinian suicide bomber families for blowing themselves up. Means he was linked to terrorists to me.
Would have been only a matter of time, if he had not already dealt with the like of Bin Laden.

Dyze · 08-22-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Terrorists? Known fact he made payments to Palestinian suicide bomber families for blowing themselves up. Means he was linked to terrorists to me.

Well, doesn´t mean that to me. How about he just wanted to show his people, Palestinian people and/or USamerican people that he welcomes anti-USA actions. It´s not that he trained them and taught them how to blow themselves up. (Might be though)
Anyways, I give money to organizations whose actions I support.

Charlatan · 08-22-2005, 02:46 PM

Oh. I guess I was wrong.

Let the war continue.

Willravel · 08-22-2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Oh. I guess I was wrong.

Let the war continue.

well put.

reconmike-
What WMDs are we referring to? I don't suppose those are the phantom weapons that the administration has admitted they can't find. Most experts knew from the get go that they woulnd't find them. You can do better than WMDs.

Ah yes, the Palestinian suicide bomber refrence. So were those Palestinian suicide bombers going to be attacking Boston? Maybe San Francisco. Certianally they would attack Talahasee (I can never spell thet right without looking it up). No? OH, thery were going to attack Israel. Well, that's certianally wrong. So how many actual suicide bombers did Sadam pay? Certianally over 100. No? Over 50 then! Nope. Can you guess how many he paid?

What Host so elequently pointed out (and has been pointing out for a long time) is that this is a planned illegal invasion covered up by lies and deception. There was no threat from Iraq to the US. None.

shakran · 08-22-2005, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

well put.

reconmike-
What WMDs are we referring to? I don't suppose those are the phantom weapons that the administration has admitted they can't find. Most experts knew from the get go that they woulnd't find them. You can do better than WMDs.

Ah yes, the Palestinian suicide bomber refrence. So were those Palestinian suicide bombers going to be attacking Boston? Maybe San Francisco. Certianally they would attack Talahasee (I can never spell thet right without looking it up). No? OH, thery were going to attack Israel. Well, that's certianally wrong. So how many actual suicide bombers did Sadam pay? Certianally over 100. No? Over 50 then! Nope. Can you guess how many he paid?

What Host so elequently pointed out (and has been pointing out for a long time) is that this is a planned illegal invasion covered up by lies and deception. There was no threat from Iraq to the US. None.

THe trouble with the palestinian suicide bomber reference is that no one has ever offered clear and convincing evidence (no, "well gee I'm just SURE they're bad" does not count) that Iraq was a hotbed of terrorism - - well, not one until the US came in, decimated their security, and failed to provide security of its own. Now terrorists are streaming in in droves through the swiss cheese-like border, and some Bush apologists have actually tried to point to that fact as "proof" that Saddam's Iraq supported terrorism. . .Ironic considering it was Bush himself that caused this new Iraqi terrorism.

stevo · 08-23-2005, 05:31 AM

here's a recap of saddam's ties to terrorism.

Quote:

The evidence for Hussein's cooperation with and support for global terrorists is abundant and increasing. Recall, for instance:

Hussein paid bonuses of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. "President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000," Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, declared at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported two days later.

Mahmoud Besharat, who the White House says dispensed these funds across the West Bank, gratefully said: "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."

Between Aziz's announcement and the March 20 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured 1,209 people and killed 223 more, including at least eight Americans.

According to the State Department's May 21, 2002 "Patterns of Global Terrorism," the Abu Nidal Organization, the Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, the Kurdistan Worker's party, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization and the Palestinian Liberation Front all operated offices or bases in Hussein's Iraq.

Hussein's hospitality towards these mass murderers placed him in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which prohibited him from giving safe harbor to or otherwise supporting terrorists.

Coalition forces have found alive and well key terrorists who enjoyed Hussein's hospitality.

Among them was Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Manhattan retiree who Abbas's men rolled, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean.

Khala Khadr al-Salahat, accused of designing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 (259 killed on board, 11 dead on the ground), also lived in Baathist Iraq.

Before fatally shooting himself four times in the head on August 16, 2002, as Baghdad claimed, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal had resided in Iraq since 1999.

As the AP's Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the Abu Nidal Organization said he entered Iraq "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities." Nidal's attacks in 20 countries killed at least 275 people and wounded some 625 others.

Among other atrocities, ANO henchmen bombed a TWA airliner over the Aegean Sea in 1974, killing all 88 people on board.

Coalition troops destroyed at least three terrorist training camps including a base near Baghdad called Salman Pak.

It featured a passenger-jet fuselage where numerous Iraqi defectors reported that foreign terrorists were instructed how to hijack airliners with utensils.

(The Bush administration should bus a few dozen foreign correspondents and their camera crews from the bar of Baghdad's Palestine Hotel to Salman Pak for a guided tour. Network news footage of that ought to open a few eyes.)

As for Hussein's supposedly imaginary ties to al Qaeda, consider these disturbing facts:

The Philippine government expelled Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary at Iraq's Manila embassy, on February 13, 2003. Cell-phone records indicate that the diplomat had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, just before and just after this al Qaeda-allied Islamic militant group conducted an attack in Zamboanga City.

Abu Sayyaf's nail-filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos and U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40. As Dan Murphy wrote in the Christian Science Monitor last February 26, those phone records bolster Sali's claim in a November 2002 TV interview that the Iraqi diplomat had offered these Muslim extremists Baghdad's help with joint missions.

Journalist Stephen F. Hayes reported in July that the official Babylon Daily Political Newspaper published by Hussein's eldest son, Uday, ran what it called a "List of Honor."

The paper's November 14, 2002, edition gave the names and titles of 600 leading Iraqis, including this passage: "Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan."

That name, Hayes wrote, matches that of Iraq's then-ambassador to Islamabad.

Carter-appointed federal appeals judge Gilbert S. Merritt discovered this document in Baghdad while helping Iraq rebuild its legal system.

He wrote in the June 25 Tennessean that two of his Iraqi colleagues remember secret police agents removing that embarrassing edition from newsstands and confiscating copies of it from private homes. The paper was not published for the next ten days.

Judge Merritt theorized that the "impulsive and somewhat unbalanced" Uday may have showcased these dedicated Baathists to "make them more loyal and supportive of the regime" as war loomed.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell. He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad.

He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.

While Iraqi Ramzi Yousef, ringleader of the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot, fled the U.S. on a Pakistani passport, he arrived here on an Iraqi passport.

Author Richard Miniter reported September 25 on TechCentralStation: "U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and a monthly salary."

Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared al Qaeda member Abdul Rahman Yasin was indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring some 1,000 New Yorkers.

Along Iraq's border with Syria, U.S. troops captured Farouk Hijazi, Hussein's former ambassador to Turkey and suspected liaison to al Qaeda.

Under interrogation, Hijazi "admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994."

While sifting through the Mukhabarat's bombed ruins last April 26, the Toronto Star's Mitch Potter, the London Daily Telegraph's Inigo Gilmore and their translator discovered a memo in the intelligence service's accounting department.

Dated February 19, 1998 and marked "Top Secret and Urgent," it said the agency would pay "all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The memo's three references to bin Laden were obscured crudely with correction fluid.

Despite the White House's inexplicable insistence to the contrary, tantalizing clues suggest Saddam Hussein might not have shared the world's shock when fireballs erupted from the Twin Towers.

Recall that his Salman Pak terror camp taught terrorists air piracy on an actual jet fuselage.

On January 5, 2000, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir — an Iraqi airport greeter reportedly dispatched from Baghdad's embassy in Malaysia — welcomed Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi to Kuala Lampur and escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash.

Five days later, according to Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. He was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001, six days after al Midhar and al Hamzi slammed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 216 people.

On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered papers tying him to the 1993 WTC plot and "Operation Bojinka," al Qaeda's 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets over the Pacific at once.

The Czech Republic stands by its claim that 9/11 leader Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001 with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim an-Ani, an Iraqi diplomat/intelligence agent. He was expelled two weeks after the suspected meeting with Atta for apparently hostile surveillance of Radio Free Europe's Prague headquarters, from which American broadcasts to Iraq emanate.
Clinton-appointed Manhattan federal judge Harold Baer ordered Hussein and his ousted regime to pay $104 million in damages to the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, both killed in the Twin Towers along with 2,790 others. "I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda," Baer ruled.

An airtight case? No, but sufficient evidence tied Hussein to 9/11 and secured a May 7 federal judgment against him.

If one has the time or professional duty to connect these dots, a portrait emerges of Saddam Hussein as sugar daddy to global terrorists, including al Qaeda and perhaps the 9/11 conspirators.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts

it was only a matter of time before saddam aided in another attack on the US. only a matter of time. Here's another little web page that might be interesting to some of you. http://www.husseinandterror.com/

shakran · 08-23-2005, 05:40 AM

From their index page:

Quote:

Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web.

Automatic bias. How can conservatives accuse the media of liberal bias when negative stories about Bush and/or the war emerge, yet then turn around and quote passages from sources that are not only biased, but declare it up front on their front page?

And then the second to last paragraph in your quote fully discloses that there IS no airtight case against Saddam.

Sorry, but that's not good enough to justify invading a sovereign nation, toppling its government, killing scores of our soldiers, and countless thousands of Iraqis.

stevo · 08-23-2005, 05:50 AM

Of couse, why would I even post something from freerepublic.com? Its neo-con hogwash that spews lies. Attack the source, because you can't deny the facts.

At least freerepublic lets you know where they stand, unlike cnn, AP, MSNBC and the like. and "independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web" does not mean "make up lies to brainwash americans so we can take over the world for oil" as much as you may think it does.

Air-tight case - no. But thats what bush's pre-emptive policy is all about. If we wait for an air-tight case against saddam (or any other terrorist) its too late, because they've struck again.

But please, try and refute the facts, or get host to help you find some liberal editorial that does.

Charlatan · 08-23-2005, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Air-tight case - no. But thats what bush's pre-emptive policy is all about. If we wait for an air-tight case against saddam (or any other terrorist) its too late, because they've struck again.

This is a *very* dangerous precident. My main issue with the Iraq invasion stems from the fact that it is a "pre-emptive" strike with no air tight evidence. Just make up whatever works at the time and pray noone looks too close.

War was never the answer for this problem but chickenhawks love them some war.

If this invasion of Iraq had anything to do with protecting Irsrael from Palestinian terrorist, why not just come out and say so from the start? The Bush Administration can't make up its mind what this war is about and has changed its reasons for going to war many times (well maybe a few times).

RangerDick · 08-23-2005, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The Bush Administration can't make up its mind what this war is about and has changed its reasons for going to war many times (well maybe a few times).

For the last time, read the Congressional Joint Resolution for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. This will spell out all the reasons the US military was deployed. The "Bushistas" haven't changed why we went to Iraq. However, whatever the media happens to blow up and spoon feed to you as the daily reason, has changed. Don't be so friggin naive.

Quote:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html

ObieX · 08-23-2005, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

THe trouble with the palestinian suicide bomber reference is that no one has ever offered clear and convincing evidence (no, "well gee I'm just SURE they're bad" does not count) that Iraq was a hotbed of terrorism - - well, not one until the US came in, decimated their security, and failed to provide security of its own. Now terrorists are streaming in in droves through the swiss cheese-like border, and some Bush apologists have actually tried to point to that fact as "proof" that Saddam's Iraq supported terrorism. . .Ironic considering it was Bush himself that caused this new Iraqi terrorism.

This is exactly what Bush seems to have wanted though. To "fight 'them' over there instead of over here". He WANTED to smack the hornet's nest. I mean, there have been many many quotes here of what Bush knew was gonna happen from when Clinton was in office. He KNEW that the place was extremely dangerous and exactly what would happen when we tried to actually go in and hold the place, but that didn't seem to stop him when he got the office. Give em hell tho if a Democrat thought about attempting this war.

Charlatan · 08-23-2005, 06:26 AM

Quote:

For the last time, read the Congressional Joint Resolution for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. This will spell out all the reasons the US military was deployed. The "Bushistas" haven't changed why we went to Iraq. However, whatever the media happens to blow up and spoon feed to you as the daily reason, has changed. Don't be so friggin naive.

...and where does the media get its stories to spoon feed us poor naive simpletons? From the US Administration.

It it was all about this resolution why not just state this and keep repeating it until they are blue in the face. They don't because it turns out they were wrong.

I can't believe you are relying on a UN resolution to defend this invasion. When was the last time the current Administration or any of its toadies seriously got behind ANY UN resolution? Only when it served their own interests.

Hans Blix, the guy in charge of the UN weapons inspections and Mohammad Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency BOTH felt they were making satisfactory progress in Iraq. The US Administration decided, "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out."

War was not the solution to this problem. The solution would have taken decades and the US Administration only had 2 to 3 more years before the next election to look like they were doing something. Sadly, the flower strewn parades they dreamed of never came to pass... I really wish it could have been that simple. It never is.

RangerDick · 08-23-2005, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

...and where does the media get its stories to spoon feed us poor naive simpletons? From the US Administration.

It it was all about this resolution why not just state this and keep repeating it until they are blue in the face. They don't because it turns out they were wrong.

I can't believe you are relying on a UN resolution to defend this invasion. When was the last time the current Administration or any of its toadies seriously got behind ANY UN resolution? Only when it served their own interests.

What I posted was not a UN resolution, (personal comment removed) You know better than to post this. You have a time out to cool off. It was a resolution, passed by Congress. Yes, the United States Congress. Of America.

stevo · 08-23-2005, 06:40 AM

shit man. personal comment removed that really wasn't nice. you should calm down for you get the whip cracked on yo ass. really though. owch.

Charlatan · 08-23-2005, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerDick

What I posted was not a UN resolution, personal comment removed It was a resolution, passed by Congress. Yes, the United States Congress. Of America.

Charming... you kiss your mother with that mouth?

(you sure your name isn't Moosenose? Daswig? or something like that?)

My error. I was referring to reconmike's repetitious posting of UN resoultion 1441 in defense of the attack on Iraq. Besides the fact that this document quotes multiple UN resolutions as providing international permission to proceed with an invasion.

stevo · 08-23-2005, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Charming... you kiss your mother with that mouth?

(you sure your name isn't Moosenose? Daswig? or something like that?)

My error. I was referring to reconmike's repetitious posting of UN resoultion 1441 in defense of the attack on Iraq.

Thats a good one too. but do you deny saddam's ties to terror??

Charlatan · 08-23-2005, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Thats a good one too. but do you deny saddam's ties to terror??

I haven't seen that he has any connection to Al-Quaida or 9/11.

It is very likely that he was offering money to Palestinian suicide bombers families. Let's face it. Saddam was a very bad man. The world is probably better off without him in office.

But I don't think the solution to this was war. It sets a very bad precident. How long before, the US decides that Hugo Chavez is too much a pain and decides to "liberate" Venezula? This isn't such a red herring when you look at Iraq and what took place in Central America during the 80s.

The solution, as I've said elsewhere, is policing the criminals who use terrorism as a political tool and education. The problem is, given the messed up state of affairs that is the Middle East, this solution would take decades and everyone seems to like a goverment that looks like they are doing something.

War sure looks like something in TV.

stevo · 08-23-2005, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I haven't seen that he has any connection to Al-Quaida or 9/11.

I highlighted passages from my earlier post to emphasize the ties to al qaeda, in case you overlooked it.

Charlatan · 08-23-2005, 10:35 AM

I did miss them... Do you have any other sources who can back this up? I am afraid I have to take it with at least a small grain of salt given the source.

host · 08-23-2005, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

here's a recap of saddam's ties to terrorism.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts

it was only a matter of time before saddam aided in another attack on the US. only a matter of time. Here's another little web page that might be interesting to some of you. http://www.husseinandterror.com/

stevo, you seem to live in a parallel universe, complete with it's own, unique "slant" about the facts. You are influenced to be "more Bush, than Bush", in that you advance arguments and "sources" in defense of this administration's failed and illegal foreign policy, that even it's principle's (Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld....) do not dare to "push", presumably because they still feel a need to be taken seriously; and even they know that citing "journalist" Stephen F. Hayes will not get them where they want to be located in the court of public opinion. If your "Freeper" sourced argument could withstand any kind of scrutiny, would this administration not trumpet it incessantly? They do not!

The problem is....that outside of your "circle", your "take" receives no more validation in U.S. MSM, and....in a more "telling" indicator,,,,to me, anyway,,,,in the press reports of the MSM of the western english speaking world.....in the BBC...Canadian and Australian media reports....etc.

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406300014

<h4>Stephen Hayes: Conservatives' favorite authority on "The Connection"</h4>

Weekly Standard staff writer and author of the book <a href="http://www.harpercollins.com/catalog/order_xml.asp?isbn=0060746734">The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America</a> (released on June 1 by Rupert Murdoch's publishing house HarperCollins), Stephen F. Hayes has appeared in recent months on numerous cable and Sunday talk shows to support his contention that there was indeed a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Despite vigorous critiques that have undermined the credibility of Hayes's contention, conservative pundits have embraced Hayes and his book in order to, in the words of Center for Strategic and International Studies fellow Daniel A. Benjamin, <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2092180">"shore up the rickety argument that Baathist Iraq had posed a real national security threat to the United States."</a>
Questions surrounding Hayes's journalistic credibility have been <a href="/items/itembody/200406020002">documented</a> by Media Matters for America. His book, which largely relies on the leaking of a discredited Defense Department intelligence memo, was released by the Murdoch-owned HarperCollins and has been vigorously promoted by Hayes in the pages of the Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard. On February 17, the British daily newspaper The Guardian published a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,897015,00.html">report</a> of Murdoch's support for the Iraq war and the resulting bias in Murdoch-owned media outlets. In addition, the Murdoch-owned <a href="/items/200406240003">New York Post</a> on June 27 gave Hayes's book a <a href="http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/books/26310.htm">glowing review</a>. The review was written by Kenneth R. Timmerman, a senior writer for the conservative Washington Times' sister publication, Insight on the News; in April, Media Matters for America <a href="/items/200404300003">documented</a> Timmerman's assertion in Insight on the News that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq but that the media has chosen to let the story go unreported.

A June 2 Washington Post review by <a href="http://apps.sais-jhu.edu/faculty_bios/SAISexperts_guide/eg_adj_faculty.php">professor</a> and former FBI counterterrorism analyst <a href="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org">Matthew A. Levitt</a> took a different tack: "A constellation of suggestions, however, still is not a convincing argument. 'The Connection' raises several important questions, but it left me unconvinced." The only other favorable review of the book by a major newspaper was The Wall Street Journal's on June 22, written by senior editorial page writer Robert L. Pollock:
<blockquote>

A reader wanting to make sense of all this couldn't do better than Stephen Hayes's 'The Connection.'[...] In this balanced and careful account, Mr. Hayes describes dangerous liaisons so numerous that, it is clear, leaving Saddam in power was not a responsible option after 9/11.

[...]

Far from exaggerating the evidence linking Iraq and al Qaeda, the Bush administration has soft-pedaled two of the most suggestive connections between Saddam's regime and the 9/11 plot itself.

[...]

One of these goes by the name of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir and is the subject of Mr. Hayes's first chapter.
</blockquote>
Coincidentally, a June 21 <a href="http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8978562.htm">article</a> by Jonathan S. Landay of Knight Ridder Newspapers and a June 22 <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58899-2004Jun21.html">article</a> by Washington Post staff writers Walter Pincus and Dan Eggen have called into question this very claim. The first chapter of Hayes's book, as well as an entire Weekly Standard <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp">article</a> by Hayes that is adapted from his book, tells the story of how Christopher Carney, deputy to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, discovered that the name (Ahmed Hikmat Shakir) of an airport greeter for Al Qaeda in Malaysia is the same as that of one of Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen personal militia officers. Hayes wrote, "The Shakir story is perhaps the government's strongest indication that Saddam and al Qaeda may have worked together on September 11." But Landay, as well as Pincus and Eggen, reported that, according to a senior administration official, the story was most likely the result of "confusion over names."

Hayes's first extensive foray into the topic of "the connection" was a cover story in the November 24, 2003, issue of The Weekly Standard titled "<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp">Case Closed</a>," which was based on the leak of a classified Defense Department intelligence written by Feith. The memo outlined numerous data points in support of the possible theory that Saddam Hussein had a working relationship with Al Qaeda. Hayes wrote:
<blockquote>
Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by The Weekly Standard.
</blockquote>
The Department of Defense subsequently issued a <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html">press release</a> downplaying the memo's significance and undermining the conclusion reached by Hayes: "The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions."

On November 18, 2003, The Washington Post's Pincus <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54452-2003Nov17">reported</a> criticisms of Hayes's article and of the memo itself:
<blockquote>
W. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], said yesterday that the Standard article "is a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship. If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?"

Another former senior intelligence official said the memo is not an intelligence product but rather "data points ... among the millions of holdings of the intelligence agencies, many of which are simply not thought likely to be true."
</blockquote>

The most vigorous critique of Hayes's article came from a November 19, 2003, Newsweek article titled "<a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540586">Case Decidedly Not Closed: The Defense Dept. memo allegedly proving a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam does nothing of the sort</a>," in which Investigative Correspondents Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball wrote that Hayes's article was "mostly based on unverified claims that were first advanced by some top Bush administration officials more than a year ago -- and were largely discounted at the time by the U.S. intelligence community, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials." Isikoff and Hosenball discredited the memo upon which Hayes based his argument:
<blockquote>
In fact, the tangled tale of the memo suggests that the case of whether there has been Iraqi-Al Qaeda complicity is far from closed...

With a few, inconclusive exceptions, the memo doesn't actually contain much "new" intelligence at all. Instead, it mostly recycles shards of old, raw data that were first assembled last year by a tiny team of floating Pentagon analysts (led by a Pennsylvania State University professor and U.S. Navy analyst Christopher Carney) whom [Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J.] Feith asked to find evidence of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda "connection" in order to better justify a U.S. invasion.
</blockquote>
In December 2003, Daniel A. Benjamin, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff, <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2092180">criticized</a> the so-called "Feith memo" in Slate.com: "[I]n any serious intelligence review, much of the material presented would quickly be discarded."

These criticisms did not stop Vice President Dick Cheney, however, from telling the Rocky Mountain News on January 24 that The Weekly Standard article was the "best source of information" on collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Hayes's book, like his 2003 "Case Closed" article, largely relies on the Feith memo, as well as on what Hayes describes as "open sources": unclassified government reports, court documents, and news reports. The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133">wrote</a> of the book on May 27:

<blockquote>
In his new book, "The Connection," Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard puts together all of the many strands of intriguing evidence that the two did do business together. There's no single "smoking gun," but there sure is a lot of smoke.
</blockquote>
The conservative Washington Times wrote on June 2:
<blockquote>
Stephen Hayes shows that [ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda] to be the case in his cover story of this week's Weekly Standard and in his recently published book on the same subject, "The Connection." While neither publication breaks new ground, they are worthwhile not only for punctuating the collaboration between Osama bin Laden and Saddam, but also for underlining the liberal media's shifting conventional wisdom on the subject.

</blockquote>
The fact that Hayes's work failed to "[break] new ground" did not stop CNN host Wolf Blitzer on June 3, before Hayes appeared as a guest on his CNN show Wolf Blitzer Reports, from announcing that Hayes had "[n]ew information ... about an alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden." Though Blitzer added, "Doubts remain [about the connection]" in the teaser for the interview, Blitzer failed to question Hayes about critiques of the Feith memo or Hayes's Weekly Standard article.

Days earlier, on the May 30 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert, Hayes <a href="/items/itembody/200406020002">appeared as a guest</a> on Russert's panel. When questioning Hayes about his book, Russert also failed to mention any criticism of Hayes's work.

Hayes also appeared to discuss his book on the Murdoch-owned FOX News Channel program The O'Reilly Factor on June 2; on CNN's American Morning on June 10; on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on June 16; on NPR's Talk of the Nation on June 17; as well as on CNBC's Capital Report, on FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, and on the National Rifle Association's NRA News radio show on June 18.

Hayes's appearances continued unchallenged, despite the questions surrounding his assertions and despite, perhaps more notably, the release on June 16 of the 9-11 Commission's "<a href="http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_15.pdf">Staff Statement 15</a><img src="/static/img/pdf.gif" alt="PDF" />," finding that there was "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Media Matters for America has documented other distortions of the commission statement <a href="/items/itembody/200406280002">here</a> and <a href="/items/200406250005">here</a>.

Many conservative commentators and pundits have unconditionally embraced Hayes's work even after the release of the 9-11 Commission findings. On the June 27 edition of FOX Broadcasting Company's FOX News Sunday, guest host Brit Hume called Hayes, "who writes for The Weekly Standard, a political journal owned by the parent company of this network", an "authority" on the subject of the possible connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

On June 21, Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's Scarborough Country and a former U.S. Representative (R-FL), cited Hayes's Weekly Standard article to back up his argument for a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda:
<blockquote>
SCARBOROUGH: And I want to read for you all what Stephen Hayes wrote in The Weekly Standard. He said: "No fewer than six top Clinton administration officials on the record cited the Iraq connection to justify its strikes in response to the Al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. embassies."

There's so much evidence out there. There's a Pentagon report that was leaked, over 50 connections. It just -- it goes on and on and on.

</blockquote>
On the June 20 edition of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown, conservative author and columnist <a href="/items/itembody/200406070007">Christopher Hitchens</a> plugged Hayes's book: "I don't think anyone who hasn't read this or doesn't read it can be taken seriously if they say there's no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. This is the book to beat if you fall for that propaganda." Hitchens has also promoted Hayes's book and its claim of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda in non-media venues. On June 8, American Prospect writing fellow Matthew Yglesias <a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7815">wrote</a> about a publicity event for Hayes's book that was held at the neoconservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute, where Hitchens sought to bolster Hayes's contention of a Saddam Hussein/Al Qaeda connection.

And in a June 16 <a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_061604/content/truth_detector.guest.html">transcript</a> of Rush Limbaugh's radio show, titled "Believe Hayes, Not 9/11 Commission," Limbaugh promoted Hayes's book and his contention of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Limbaugh also featured Hayes's book on his online "<a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/the_limbaugh_library.guest.html">Limbaugh Library</a>."

Newspapers and columnists, too, have pointed to Hayes's work as a source for bolstering the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection argument. A June 17 New York Post editorial noted, "[A]s Stephen Hayes writes in The Weekly Standard, the conventional wisdom in Washington long before George W. Bush took office was that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were partners in terrorism."

A June 18 Washington Times editorial, seeking to rebut claims that no connection existed, also added, "In his new book, 'The Connection,' Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard details a series of ties between Saddam and al Qaeda dating back nearly a decade."

And in a June 23 United Press International (UPI) column, UPI national political analyst Peter Roff, writing in support of the contention that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were connected, noted, "Journalist Stephen Hayes, writing in The Weekly Standard, has documented several more instances of contact and cooperation that should be enough to close the case."

Since the June 16 release of the 9-11 Commission <a href="http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_15.pdf">Staff Statement No. 15</a><img src="/static/img/pdf.gif" alt="PDF" />, The Weekly Standard has published no fewer than six articles by Hayes challenging the commission's findings.

— S.M.

Posted to the web on Wednesday June 30, 2004 at 7:33 PM EST

stevo · 08-23-2005, 11:30 AM

Thats funny host. I read that article and the only FACT that was disputed was the name of the airport greeter - where there may, or may not, be a confusion over names. Your article doesn't go one to say it WAS a confusion over names, just that that is a likely possibility.

But I see none of the other ascertations were challenged. Hayes's sources were riddiculed because the intelligence community had already viewed them. And his book was described as propaganda because of who was promoting it.

But why aren't the claims hayes makes discounted?

shakran · 08-23-2005, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Of couse, why would I even post something from freerepublic.com? Its neo-con hogwash that spews lies. Attack the source, because you can't deny the facts.

I did deny the facts. And I even used your source to do it. Read it again.

Quote:

At least freerepublic lets you know where they stand, unlike cnn, AP, MSNBC and the like.

Fox. . .

And frankly all the networks you mentioned (and the ones you didn't) went pretty damn easy on Bush. Why wasn't he grilled much harder about his motives for going to war before going to war? Whether you agree with being in Iraq or not, you have the right to be informed as to the reasons for us being there. You NEED to be informed of those reasons if you are to make a good decision as to where you stand. It is the media's job (and remember that I am a member of the media) to press for those reasons, and to press for ALL of the facts/justifications before the invasion takes place. And the media dropped the ball catastrophically. I really like how you guys paint the media as liberal even though the media let Bush get away with a TON of crap that he should at least have faced questions about.

Yet this same "liberal media" harrassed Clinton endlessly over a blowjob.

Go figure.

Quote:

and "independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web" does not mean "make up lies to brainwash americans so we can take over the world for oil" as much as you may think it does.

Never said it did. But it does mean "Hey guys! We have a bias! We're not gonna present information that proves us wrong and the other side right!"

Quote:

Air-tight case - no. But thats what bush's pre-emptive policy is all about. If we wait for an air-tight case against saddam (or any other terrorist) its too late, because they've struck again.

What you are proposing is quite frankly asinine. You want to give the president the power to say "well gee I THINK these guys might some day have a remote chance of doing something to us so I'm gonna go in and destroy them now." With such a flimsy justification requirement, you're giving him carte blanche to invade anywhere and any time he wants to. And might I point out that this pre-emptive policy crap is what was used with Iraq, and not only did we fail to find any evidence that they had anything they could hurt us with, but we also turned the country into a haven for terrorists who CAN hurt us. The pre-emptive policy not only did not work, it backfired tremendously. Bush couldn't have put us in any more danger if he had been working for bin Laden himself.

Quote:

But please, try and refute the facts, or get host to help you find some liberal editorial that does.

I do. Please try to read (and comprehend) posts so that you recognize refutations when you see them.

politicophile · 08-23-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

You want to give the president the power to say "well gee I THINK these guys might some day have a remote chance of doing something to us so I'm gonna go in and destroy them now." With such a flimsy justification requirement, you're giving him carte blanche to invade anywhere and any time he wants to. And might I point out that this pre-emptive policy crap is what was used with Iraq, and not only did we fail to find any evidence that they had anything they could hurt us with, but we also turned the country into a haven for terrorists who CAN hurt us. The pre-emptive policy not only did not work, it backfired tremendously. Bush couldn't have put us in any more danger if he had been working for bin Laden himself.

Hasty generalization: you are drawing a universal conclusion from a single instance. In this case, you argue that the doctrine of preemption is a bad one because, according to some standards and not others, it failed in Iraq. At the very least, you would need to have more examples of preemptive wars failing before discounting the concept itself.

I'll add that I think preemption is not only wise, but necessary. In an age where catastrophic damage can be wrecked upon the United States by any number of countries or terrorist organizations, having an itchy trigger-finger is a small price to pay. If a few "innocent" despotic, sadistic, dispicable dictators get the axe as a result, I won't have any trouble sleeping at night.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Please try to read (and comprehend) posts so that you recognize refutations when you see them.

Rude, derogatory, and completely unnecessary. If you are able to marshall the facts to your side, there is no need for this kind of behavior, so knock it off.

smooth · 08-23-2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

In an age where catastrophic damage can be wrecked upon the United States by any number of countries or terrorist organizations, having an itchy trigger-finger is a small price to pay. If a few "innocent" despotic, sadistic, dispicable dictators get the axe as a result, I won't have any trouble sleeping at night.

I've read too many of your posts to genuinely believe that you meant this as literally as it reads to me. [translation: my perception is that you're more intelligent than this statement appears to me].

How can you condense international wars to the death of a "few 'innocent' despotic[...]dictators?" I would have been more comfortable with your standpoint had you argued for preemptive assassinations...but preemptive wars between sovereign nations? I haven't seen the evidence that more harm is reduced by such actions...

Elphaba · 08-23-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Hasty generalization: you are drawing a universal conclusion from a single instance. In this case, you argue that the doctrine of preemption is a bad one because, according to some standards and not others, it failed in Iraq. At the very least, you would need to have more examples of preemptive wars failing before discounting the concept itself.

Politico, you must know that I would challenge you on this statement. You and I can both count the number of preemptive wars that the US has started. It is exactly ONE. How do you propose that we compare it to any previous preemptive war?

Willravel · 08-23-2005, 05:57 PM

When I read posts that are so ofensive that they have to be edited by the moderators, I tend to ignore them. If you want to get your point across, you should just make your point.

Preemptive war has proven horrible once. How many times does a preemptive strike need to fail before it is considered a poor strategy? This preemptive war was espically terrible because it was based on misinformation and misdirection from the current administration.
Go to war over a threat tto our nation.
Find no threat to our nation.
Claim the war was to liberate the people.
Met with heavy resistence that quickly escalates into a rebelion.
The same Iraqis we came to liberate fight back against us and we capture them and torture them.

America was not in direct danger. We invaded them.

shakran · 08-23-2005, 06:27 PM

(edit to remove doublepost)

shakran · 08-23-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Hasty generalization: you are drawing a universal conclusion from a single instance. In this case, you argue that the doctrine of preemption is a bad one because, according to some standards and not others, it failed in Iraq. At the very least, you would need to have more examples of preemptive wars failing before discounting the concept itself.

1) You ignored half my point. Were you planning on responding to that, or are you acknowledging that I am correct about it?

2) If I burn my hand on a hot stove, I do not need to do it again and again in order to conclude that putting my hand on hot stoves is not a good idea. You are suggesting that until I burn both hands multiple times I have no evidence that putting my hand on the hot stove will hurt.

The world does not work the way you seem to want it to. If I propose a course of action in a business, and it loses my company a million dollars, they are not likely to tell me "what a GREAT idea you had!!! Let's do that one again and again!"

Yet you seem to think that even though this pre-emptive strike idea has led directly to the deaths of Americans, and has led directly to America being in more danger, and has led directly to the OPPOSITE of what Bush claims to want (reduction in terrorists), it's still a good idea and we need to do it over and over before we decide maybe it's not so hot.

Quote:

I'll add that I think preemption is not only wise, but necessary. In an age where catastrophic damage can be wrecked upon the United States by any number of countries or terrorist organizations, having an itchy trigger-finger is a small price to pay. If a few "innocent" despotic, sadistic, dispicable dictators get the axe as a result, I won't have any trouble sleeping at night.

A fine sentiment, but your ideas are allowing far too much freedom for the president. A pre-emptive strike is fine as long as you KNOW you're about to get hit. If someone's standing in front of me with his fist cocked and he's shouting that he's gonna kill me, I'm justfied in pre-emptively knocking his block off.

But if a big guy is sitting in a chair across the room reading a novel, I'm not justified in thinking "Gosh, that guy's muscles are huge! If he puts that book down and gets up outa that chair and walks across the room and hits me it's really gonna hurt. I think I'll just pull my gun and blow his brains out pre-emptively to be sure that can't happen."

You're advocating allowing the president to do just that with countries. "Gee they have a few weapons and I guess if they get mad enough they could shoot a few Americans. Let's get 'em!" It's what happened in Iraq. It's what will happen again if we allow this asinine policy to continue.

Quote:

Rude, derogatory, and completely unnecessary. If you are able to marshall the facts to your side, there is no need for this kind of behavior, so knock it off.

No, accurate. You either failed to read my post entirely, or having read it you failed to comprehend it. And you did it again in your second reply to me. You either completely missed (didn't read) or didn't grasp (failed to comprehend) the part where I talked about giving the president the power to do too much with too little provocation.

The third alternative is that you're being obtuse and conveniently choosing to ignore points which you do not have the ability to refute. I'm assuming that you would not do that based on your past posts, so I stand by my original statement.

politicophile · 08-24-2005, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I've read too many of your posts to genuinely believe that you meant this as literally as it reads to me. [translation: my perception is that you're more intelligent than this statement appears to me].

How can you condense international wars to the death of a "few 'innocent' despotic[...]dictators?" I would have been more comfortable with your standpoint had you argued for preemptive assassinations...but preemptive wars between sovereign nations? I haven't seen the evidence that more harm is reduced by such actions...

I am not a hawk: don't get me wrong on that point. I am, however, a realist enough to believe that countries are sometimes justified in preemptively attacking each other.

The only legitimate justification for starting a war is self-defense: I do not buy the idea of humanitarian wars. I'm sure you will admit, however, that there are many instances in which self-defense requires preemptive offense. In the example of Iraq, it was certainly not the case that harm was reduced by preemptively going to war, as our intelligence was totally false. Had the scenerio been exactly the same however, with the only difference being that all the intelligence reports were accurate, invading Iraq would have been justified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Politico, you must know that I would challenge you on this statement. You and I can both count the number of preemptive wars that the US has started. It is exactly ONE. How do you propose that we compare it to any previous preemptive war?

I agree that this is the only modern example of a preemptive war. Especially in light of the fact that the United States has never engaged in a preemptive war without basing its case on massively flawed intelligence, I feel that it is unwise to rule out the possiblity of striking preemptively in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Preemptive war has proven horrible once. How many times does a preemptive strike need to fail before it is considered a poor strategy? This preemptive war was espically terrible because it was based on misinformation and misdirection from the current administration.
Go to war over a threat tto our nation.
Find no threat to our nation.
Claim the war was to liberate the people.
Met with heavy resistence that quickly escalates into a rebelion.
The same Iraqis we came to liberate fight back against us and we capture them and torture them.

America was not in direct danger. We invaded them.

I completely agree with you: the Iraq war was justified by WMD that didn't exist and then the Bush administration pretended that they had invaded in order to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. If, however, Iraq had actually posed a significant danger to the United States, I would have been ok with the invasion. So yes, Iraq was an illegitimate preemptive war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

When I read posts that are so ofensive that they have to be edited by the moderators, I tend to ignore them. If you want to get your point across, you should just make your point.

Good advice. I'll do that right now, in fact!

smooth · 08-24-2005, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

I am not a hawk: don't get me wrong on that point. I am, however, a realist enough to believe that countries are sometimes justified in preemptively attacking each other.

The only legitimate justification for starting a war is self-defense: I do not buy the idea of humanitarian wars. I'm sure you will admit, however, that there are many instances in which self-defense requires preemptive offense. In the example of Iraq, it was certainly not the case that harm was reduced by preemptively going to war, as our intelligence was totally false. Had the scenerio been exactly the same however, with the only difference being that all the intelligence reports were accurate, invading Iraq would have been justified.

Thank you for responding to my questions.
I will post how I interpreted your reply so you can respond or clarify your position to me...

If we reduce harm by our actions, then a war is justified.
If we fail to reduce harm by our actions, then a war is not justified.
The justification of a war depends on the outcome.

The ends justify the means.

Did I read your position correctly?

stevo · 08-24-2005, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I did deny the facts. And I even used your source to do it. Read it again.

I read it again. must have missed it. could you re-post?

shakran · 08-24-2005, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I read it again. must have missed it. could you re-post?

Gladly: (I'm adding this line to meet the post length quota since quotes don't count

)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me

And then the second to last paragraph in your quote fully discloses that there IS no airtight case against Saddam.

Sorry, but that's not good enough to justify invading a sovereign nation, toppling its government, killing scores of our soldiers, and countless thousands of Iraqis.

08-22-2005, 12:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	There was a nice NOVA special about the war and it went on to describe how we had troops and tanks that had been moving in Iraq and planes had been bombing targets for many months before the war was started. By the time the war started we already had control over about 1/3rd of the country. They call it "softening up the target" i call it invasion. And what about approval of the American people? Sitting before the UN and this country trying to make the case for war, in the mean time the war is already going (who cares, right?). __________________ We Must Dissent.

08-22-2005, 12:43 PM	#4 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Seriously... if that was his reason (and yes we've all read the document) then why didn't the Bush Administration just come out and say, "The reason we are doing this is because Iraq has broken with UN resoultion 1441". Why bother trying to link Iraq to WMD, to 9/11, to terrorists in general. Why bother saying, "we are doing this to liberate the people of Iraq"? The reason is: UN resoultion 1441 is not the reason. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-22-2005, 12:59 PM	#5 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Well Charlatan WMD is the reason he broke the cease-fire, by dicking with UN inspectors and by throwing them out of Iraq he violated the terms of it. Terrorists? Known fact he made payments to Palestinian suicide bomber families for blowing themselves up. Means he was linked to terrorists to me. Would have been only a matter of time, if he had not already dealt with the like of Bin Laden. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

08-22-2005, 02:46 PM	#7 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Oh. I guess I was wrong. Let the war continue. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-23-2005, 05:50 AM	#12 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Of couse, why would I even post something from freerepublic.com? Its neo-con hogwash that spews lies. Attack the source, because you can't deny the facts. At least freerepublic lets you know where they stand, unlike cnn, AP, MSNBC and the like. and "independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web" does not mean "make up lies to brainwash americans so we can take over the world for oil" as much as you may think it does. Air-tight case - no. But thats what bush's pre-emptive policy is all about. If we wait for an air-tight case against saddam (or any other terrorist) its too late, because they've struck again. But please, try and refute the facts, or get host to help you find some liberal editorial that does. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

08-23-2005, 06:40 AM	#18 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	shit man. personal comment removed that really wasn't nice. you should calm down for you get the whip cracked on yo ass. really though. owch. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser Last edited by Lebell; 08-23-2005 at 06:43 AM..

08-23-2005, 10:35 AM	#23 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I did miss them... Do you have any other sources who can back this up? I am afraid I have to take it with at least a small grain of salt given the source. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-23-2005, 11:30 AM	#25 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Thats funny host. I read that article and the only FACT that was disputed was the name of the airport greeter - where there may, or may not, be a confusion over names. Your article doesn't go one to say it WAS a confusion over names, just that that is a likely possibility. But I see none of the other ascertations were challenged. Hayes's sources were riddiculed because the intelligence community had already viewed them. And his book was described as propaganda because of who was promoting it. But why aren't the claims hayes makes discounted? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

08-23-2005, 05:57 PM	#30 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	When I read posts that are so ofensive that they have to be edited by the moderators, I tend to ignore them. If you want to get your point across, you should just make your point. Preemptive war has proven horrible once. How many times does a preemptive strike need to fail before it is considered a poor strategy? This preemptive war was espically terrible because it was based on misinformation and misdirection from the current administration. Go to war over a threat tto our nation. Find no threat to our nation. Claim the war was to liberate the people. Met with heavy resistence that quickly escalates into a rebelion. The same Iraqis we came to liberate fight back against us and we capture them and torture them. America was not in direct danger. We invaded them.

08-23-2005, 06:27 PM	#31 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	(edit to remove doublepost) Last edited by shakran; 08-23-2005 at 07:17 PM..