Personally, I would rather read him the news reports that OBL had been caught. I understand your inference, but according to the vast majority of the experts, we are creating MORE terrorists than we are taking out with our policy in the middle east. I understand that we need to take a long-term approach, I just wish we had taken that approach with Iraq. Before you start crowing about "violating UN resolutions for 12 years," realize that we had Saddam COMPLETELY penned in and tied down. He had NO chance of being a threat to the US in the time it would have taken to finish rebuilding Afghanistan, capture OBL, and set up a stable democracy. Again, the real enemy to the Soviets was the undying support of the muhjadeen by the people of Afghanistan (who were also fighting against the oppressive Soviet regime). We did not have that problem as we were never there to be a long-term occupying force. In addition, during the war in Afghanistan, the people there did not support OBL with anything approaching the same fervor that was exhibited against the Soviets (though that may have changed since we snubbed them AGAIN only to run away and attack Iraq). There is obviously NO pressure on OBL. We have 15k troops in Afghanistan, not even enough to secure the country, much less find OBL. Personally, I don't want "token pressure" on OBL, I want a full out scouring of the countryside to find him. We were in the midst of that when Bush was bamboozled by Chalabi and Iran and started a war using exaggerated, fabricated, and uncorroborated "intelligence" to drum up support. I am certain that it was planned well in advance, but I am just as sure that it was planned AFTER we left Afghanistan. OBL is alive and well (by all the reports) and still planning terrorist attacks and instead of finishing what we started in Afghanistan, we chose to start ANOTHER war. The difference is that the war in Afghanistan NEEDED to be fought when we fought it and the war in Iraq could have waited.
Originally posted by andymoon Personally, I would rather read him the news reports that OBL had been caught. I understand your inference, but according to the vast majority of the experts, we are creating MORE terrorists than we are taking out with our policy in the middle east. I understand that we need to take a long-term approach, I just wish we had taken that approach with Iraq. Before you start crowing about "violating UN resolutions for 12 years," realize that we had Saddam COMPLETELY penned in and tied down. He had NO chance of being a threat to the US in the time it would have taken to finish rebuilding Afghanistan, capture OBL, and set up a stable democracy. <b>You should make one of those PSAs about arts funding drying up-- reading stuff like that to your kid at bedtime!! Ever heard of the Butterfly Effect? A party hostile to the US need not amass an army or even launch a warhead in this day and time. A hidden vial of something ugly can do a world of hurt. How do you "pen in" that kind of threat unless you've removed all, and I emphasize all, opportunity from it?</b> Again, the real enemy to the Soviets was the undying support of the muhjadeen by the people of Afghanistan (who were also fighting against the oppressive Soviet regime). We did not have that problem as we were never there to be a long-term occupying force. In addition, during the war in Afghanistan, the people there did not support OBL with anything approaching the same fervor that was exhibited against the Soviets (though that may have changed since we snubbed them AGAIN only to run away and attack Iraq). <b>I know that the Soviets faced other challenges as well. My point was only that the terrain is a huge obstacle to a manhunt-- and don't forget the sub-terrain.</b> There is obviously NO pressure on OBL. We have 15k troops in Afghanistan, not even enough to secure the country, much less find OBL. Personally, I don't want "token pressure" on OBL, I want a full out scouring of the countryside to find him. We were in the midst of that when Bush was bamboozled by Chalabi and Iran and started a war using exaggerated, fabricated, and uncorroborated "intelligence" to drum up support. <b>No pressure on OBL? Let's just meet at Wal-Mart then! I thought you were convinced that we were on Iraq's case from 9/11 forward?</b> I am certain that it was planned well in advance, but I am just as sure that it was planned AFTER we left Afghanistan. OBL is alive and well (by all the reports) and still planning terrorist attacks and instead of finishing what we started in Afghanistan, we chose to start ANOTHER war. The difference is that the war in Afghanistan NEEDED to be fought when we fought it and the war in Iraq could have waited. <b>AQ has cells "everywhere." Instructions from OBL could have been as simple as kill as many innocents in whatever nations support the US so that it will be maximally expedient for our Just Cause. Those orders could have been laid down in 1998. I really doubt that the Madrid bombers had any instruction from OBL in recent times. Maybe Iraq could have waited. I thought you thought we had no business there at all?</b>
who is Ahmed Shakir? from the weekly standard: http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/259gqzrw.asp -- Who Is Ahmed Hikmat Shakir? According to Knight-Ridder, the mysterious Iraqi was "employed with the aid of an Iraqi intelligence officer" and later "accompanied two Sept. 11 hijackers from the airport to a hotel where the pair met with Ramzi Binalshibh, a key planner of the attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, who masterminded al Qaida's strike on the USS Cole in October 2000." Interesting, no? by Stephen F. Hayes 06/23/2004 THE WASHINGTON POST reported yesterday morning that an Iraqi present at a key al Qaeda summit may not be the same Iraqi listed on lists of officers of the Saddam Fedayeen captured in postwar Iraq. In Al Qaeda Link to Iraq May be Confusion Over Names, the Post broke very little new ground. Both the Wall Street Journal (which broke the story) and this magazine (which confirmed it) openly acknowledged that possibility. And John Lehman, the September 11 Commissioner who raised the issue on Meet the Press on Sunday, allowed that "still has to be confirmed." The Post added to the debate in one interesting way when it reported that U.S. intelligence officials have "discounted" reports in this magazine that Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi at the al Qaeda meeting, was "under Iraqi intelligence control." That the Post has finally acknowledged the existence of Shakir might be considered a promising development, since his name has never previously graced its pages. But having whetted our appetite for substance, the Post account simply ends. Here is the Shakir chronology as reported in this week's WEEKLY STANDARD: The Post article mentions none of this; we learn only that these reports have been discounted by intelligence officials who talked to the Post, but never why. Here is one possible explanation, from a WEEKLY STANDARD article on Shakir last October: There are two critical questions, then, about Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. Was the Shakir in Kuala Lumpur the same man listed as an officer of the Saddam Fedayeen? And more important, what was the relationship, if any, between the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir who is known to have been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the Iraqi government? I don't have the answer to either one. (In fact, that uncertainty is why the first chapter in my book is not a declarative statement, but a question: "Case Open: Who is Ahmed Hikmat Shakir?") JONATHAN LANDAY, a reporter for Knight Ridder, also spoke to intelligence officials who doubt that the Shakir in Kuala Lumpur is the same one on the captured lists. "But U.S. officials told Knight Ridder on Monday that U.S. intelligence experts were highly skeptical that the Iraqi officer had any connection to al-Qaida." But in contrast to the Post's report, Landay attempted to answer the second of the two main questions about Shakir: Here is how Landay reported that question (with a slightly different name spelling): This account is reason enough for the September 11 Commission to take a good look at Shakir. According to Landay, Shakir was "employed with the aid of an Iraqi intelligence officer" and later "accompanied two Sept. 11 hijackers from the airport to a hotel where the pair met with Ramzi Binalshibh, a key planner of the attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, who masterminded al Qaida's strike on the USS Cole in October 2000." After his capture in Jordan the Iraqi regime exerted "pressure" and, upon his release, he fled to Baghdad. Landay notes that no major al Qaeda operative has implicated Shakir in the 9/11 attacks and that U.S. intelligence analysts are "highly skeptical" that he played a role. Landay may be right. There may be an innocent explanation for Shakir's activities in Kuala Lumpur. We may see that explanation in the September 11 Commission's final report later this summer. But that report will be incomplete if it does not attempt to answer the question: "Who is Ahmed Hikmat Shakir?" Stephen F. Hayes, a staff writer at The Weekly Standard, is the author of The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.
Another Stephen F. Hayes propoganda piece. Since I listened to intel officials yesterday on NPR, and provided a link here on this website You, Stephen F. Hayes, and all of us can know the answer to the question are the two Shakir's are not even the same person. One of his questions has been answered, making the other question irrelevant, and the evidence of a collaboration non-existent. They are different people with two different names.
Most do not know what war is about. But they still take on the responsibly. It's part of the duty. But it's not the volunteers job to ask questions. The military member has already signed on the dotted line. It's the citizens "job" to ask questions.
We're still waiting for new evidence to be revealed. If it's Stephen Hayes from the Weekly Standard, the FT already tried re-revealing that last week.
Until someone can effectively rebut Zinni, the fact remains that Saddam was completely contained and did not pose any sort of threat to the US whatsoever. The butterfly effect is far overshadowed by the increase in terrorism caused directly by our invasion of Iraq. And had we kept our troops (125k strong) in Afghanistan, we could have set up a search grid and found OBL. Instead, Bush flip flopped on his "dead or alive" statement because he was bamboozled into attacking Iraq. If there is a point here, I missed it. How could you doubt it? OBL has the ability to get taped messages out to Al Jazeera, what makes you think he can't get detailed instructions to his minions in the field? We had business in Iraq, but it should have taken the form of more aggressive inspections. We had the opportunity to put thousands of people on the ground in Iraq with unfettered access, but the war was so important to Bush and his cohorts that they ignored the offer and instead took us into an elective, unjustified war.
<b>Originally posted by andymoon Until someone can effectively rebut Zinni, the fact remains that Saddam was completely contained and did not pose any sort of threat to the US whatsoever. The butterfly effect is far overshadowed by the increase in terrorism caused directly by our invasion of Iraq.</b> One vial. One briefcase. One plane ticket. One terrorist. Zinni rebutted.
You are deluded. You come up with a hypothetical that Zinni specifically addressed and claim it rebuts Zinni? Get your head out of the sand, your brains are drying up.
