perhaps. I've been blindsided by a few things this morning. Like, suppose for example that we could prove that some nation once funded, supported, and supplied arms/intel to Saddam Hussein while at the same time funding, supporting, and supplying arms/intel to Osama Bin Laden? Now that would be the mother of all connections... Oh, ...wait... i read this & assumed it referred to USA.
Wow, great find, basso. Only the most passionate Bush-haters can look past all the evidence out there. Where are the WMD's? Great question, but one that Saddam should have answered, not us. He couldn't do it, so now he's sitting in a metal dumpster all day in his tighty whities.
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." -- Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003
Oh, it did. But the point I was making isn't refuted by pointing out what you feel are pragmatic reasons for having been in bed with OBL and Saddam, accurate or not. It was showing how an explanation, a context, a reason or whatever will, if it applies to us be used to dismiss much more tangible, established connections than those that exist between AQ and Iraq. The simple fact is that everyone in the ME has some connections, at some level or other, with AQ, including us. It's the nature of the beast, AQ is everywhere, and has been around in the region for a very long time. And, as just shown, many of the connections are much, much more solid than what some try to present as the step-uncle of all connections, yadda yada. To take this diatribe in the wonders of perception, imagine this: Imagine that, instead of us, the French were the nation it turns out had once funded/supplied Saddam and Osama? Honestly, if that had been the case, how willing do you suppose the standard war supporter would be to accept your explanation, and not read dark and dangerous things into the relationships? I would be willing to bet that some would even see it as sufficient grounds to assume that the French can't be trusted to be honest about anything in the matter.
touche relationships between govts are always Machiavellian. When the Chinese premier received his new Boeing a few years ago, wasn't it full of bugs that we planted? How honest do you think the Israelis are w/us, their biggest ally? What i'm clumsily saying is we should all be mefiant of each other; the understanding is that all nations look out for their own self-interests. I understand the vitriol aimed at our nation; a lot is justified. Growing up in the Mid-East, Africa & Europe and experiencing those societies,I'm still naive enough to give my govt the benefit of the doubt.
there's an obvious difference in that the french cannot be plausibly depicted as a security threat to the US. an irritant, yes, an obstacle to US policy, certainly, but not a security threat. nor is the US a threat to itself, so your entire line of reasoning is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand. as others have pointed out, the establishment of a strong connection of ties between al queda an iraq doesn't necessarily allow credit to accrue to bush. most of this evidence came to light after the fall of baghdad, and there's no way he could have known it existed. our intelligence was simply too weak. however, the evidence may be seen as validating bush's judgement that saddam was a threat, and in a post 9/11 world, one we simply couldn't ignore. one can argue whether invading was the correct policy in light of that threat, but one cannot credibly argue, based on the evidence above, that the threat didn't exist. only the most partisan of observers would suggest we should ignore it simply because dealing with it successfully would reflect well on a political opponent.
You are so not getting the point. In fact, you're confirming it. Bush said Iraq was a threat according to intel pre: war. Bush lied. I have seen nothing to suggest the intel re: Iraq being a threat was wrong, or that Bush was right. My point was, due to flimsy evidence of a flimsy connection, this you are now construing as evidence of a threat? You could do the same with anyone, and more...if you wanted to. We now want to, desperately, and have the world;s largest intel service on overdrive looking for it. And this is the best we've come up with? That's the point.
A growing threat is a threat. And I think he said more than that. He said that it wwas impossible to tell the timing of when it would be a realized threat, because that realization would take the form of "sudden and catastropic attack." That was not what the NIE had told Bush. And he conveyed the impression, several times, that it did. v., lied, ly·ing (lī'ĭng), lies. v.intr. 1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving. 2. To convey a false image or impression.
as the article above shows, HUMINT on iraq and terrorism on the ground in iraq was virtually non-existent. however, HUMINT isn't the only type of intel we had access to. there was substantial electronic intel to confirm that iraq was a threat, ergo bush's statement is factual, he did not lie. as i said, you can debate policy, but the threat was a fact.
here's an old recording from abc news from 1999 making the Iraq-al queda connection. the recording is interspersed w/ some partisan commentary (i have no idea who the jock is), but if you concentrate just on the abc part, you can see others were making the connection long before 9/11. http://archives.warroom.com/abcnews-1999.mp3
His statement was a lie. This, and not the position put forth by Bush et al, was the position re: Iraq as a thrat, as summarized in the N.I.E. report of Oct. 1, 2002, which is a summary of the combined intelligence services and resources on Iraq. "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war. Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks—more likely with biological than chemical agents—probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives. • The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been, directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory. Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida—with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States—could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct. • In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/nie-iraq-wmd.html Iraq not a threat to US, directly or indirectly, through terrorists or whatever, unless attacked. And this was even when they thought he had the damn WMDs. Is this what Bush told us he was hearing from his intelligence community? No, quite the opposite. Lie, lie, lie. Cut it any way you want, we were lied into war, and this is just one of many.
nice editing job Macbeth, you conveniently left out the following from the same document: We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.) We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq’s WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad’s vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq’s WMD programs. Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. • Iraq’s growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad’s capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year. • Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production. • Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents. • Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed—December 1998. So which is incorrect? the WMD assessment or the terrorist one? they can't both be correct.
First, you are wrong re: editing. Read my post again. I stated that they thought he had WMDs. Second, horrible logic. The point was not about their accuracy, ie they were wrong about WMDs, therefore can't be trusted re: threat. That would be valid if I were citing this to prove Iraq was no threat. I am not. I am citing this to prove that our intelligence community had assessed Iraq as no threat, and that was what Bush knew. Which is completely contradicted by what he said he knew. So, like I said, lied.
so to extend your arguement, iraq in possession of WMD posed no threat, is that your position? are you arguing that bush couldn't have thought WMD psoed a threat since the NIE suugested there was no terrorist threat?
Could have thought? Sure. He can think anything Had any basis, any realistic foundation, and more to the point, any intelligence to support that it was a threat, as he claimed? No. Lied.
He had intelligence to support Iraq had WMD. Iraq in possesion of WMD=threat. Bush claimed Iraq was a threat. to paraphrase my man inigo montoya, "'lie" "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Wrong. I already posted a definition of 'lie'. I think you are the one who is confused. And Iraq had been in possession of WND for eons, including when we were attacking them, Ane never used them against us. So your presumption is incorrect even on it's surface. As shown by the NIE report which said, YEs, WMDs, No threat. And moreover, Bush said Saddam was a threat according to intel. Not that intel had said he had a creoissant for breakfast, and Saddam with croissant = threat, or whatever extrapolation you are now trying to establish. He said intelligence was telling him Saddam = threat, when we know Intelligence was saying exactly the opposite. Lied.
