[CNN] Source of Iraq WMD Intelligence tells his story

I'd be interested in knowing your disposition toward this final remark by "curveball."

 

Nice to know people like him can spin a tale of lies and still end up with the perks. He belongs in jail or dead.

 

I'll bite....America sacrificed it's treasure and blood for Iraq, and it wasn't worth the price.

 

Nothing has changed, those clowns still like to call people unpatriotic or ask you why you hate America.


And Giddy, I'll tell you what I think about Curveball's last statement. He's not even in Iraq, so how does he know how things are there? He hasn't had to watch 100,000 civilians die. If it's so great now, why doesn't he go home? All that's happened is we removed a dictator and now opened the way to letting the country be run by religious zealots. As soon as we leave, they will be on a course to being just like Iran. There's no greener grass on either side, just deserts.

 

It is irrelevant IMO. We are supposed to be smarter than this. Our government should not be in the business of overthrowing dictatorships. That being said when Colin Powell made the U.S. case for war against Saddam at the United Nations in February before the invasion he cited Ansar al-Islam as a key reason for attacking Iraq. Powell drew links among the group, Al-Qaida, and Saddam. There was also the issue of genocide as Ansar al-Islam was trying to make Iraq a solely Islamic state, Killing women and children in Kurdish villages.

Now Silly George didn't make that distinction and said they had WMDs and we could not allow that. And it was the best argument if it was true. Unfortunately the idiot intelligence agencies and bush were wrong and the other reasons for invading Iraq were not strong enough IMO.

I would say that Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaeda are still active in Iraq and everything indicates they would have grown under Hussein and Iraq would have become a safe haven for anti-American terrorist. Add that with the genocide and Husseins overt hate for America and that in of itselfwas a major cause for concern. And it is obvious overthrowing that government wasn't all bad. But Bush and the government did not say that in the beginning. Absolutely they should be held accountable but it is history and the boat we are in now requires we finish the job.

If we leave now before Iraqi leaders can learn to defend themselves Iraq will become a fundamentalist vacuum, sucking up extremists and jihadist from across the globe. Want to kill Sunni Muslims? Go to Iraq. Want to kill Shi’ite Muslims? Go to Iraq. Want to kill Americans? Go to Iraq. Leaving Iraq now would also play right into the hands of Iran and we know how fond Ahmadinejad is of us.

So leaving Iraq now without finishing the job would be a bigger mistake than invading in the first place. It would create a great sponge, soaking up extremists from Iran to Pakistan, all who would have their sights on America. And while they may not have nuclear WMDs never understimate the heart of a Jihadist and the damage a country full of human WMD's can inflict as evidenced by 9-11.

 

So WMD was merely a pretext, and that's abundantly clear now.

The purpose of the war for the its planners was to establish a long-standing military presence in Iraq and increase our level of control in the politics of that region. Some even suggested that the conflict could drag on for several years, so I wouldn't even say that was totally unanticipated. It looks to me like we pretty much got what we wanted. Of course, at the expense of human lives, billions of dollars, strained foreign relations, and a renewed threat of terrorism in the region.

But, all in all, Mission Accomplished!

 

If you read Intel reports, Al-Queida makes up less than 5% of the opposition force in Iraq. Also, where do you get this connection of Saddam and Al-queida? I don’t know if you know, but Saddam was not a religious fanatic, actually quite the opposite, I doubt Osama and Saddam would even sit in the same room. Lastly, Hussein was never a threat to America, if you know anything about this guy, all he wanted was to remain the ruler of Iraq, screwing with America was not what he was looking for....

 

This is actually contrary to the facts. Hussein actually kept terrorist groups out of Iraq. The only parts of Iraq where these groups were active were the areas outside of Saddam's control.

It has been shown time and time again.

 

QUESTION: [not trying to be snide but .. ] What is 'THE JOB' at this point?
What is the goal?

Rocket River

 

Some things should be off limits on this board... corrupting THE Rudy T. quote that defined the championship years and pays homage to Hakeem Olajuwon should be at the top of the list.

 

never underestimate the heart of the thadeus.

 

Your first two sentences are contradictory. It is shown time and time again...

Could a blue US president keep terrorists out of a red US state? Some leader that Saddam? He pilfered Iraq and Iraqis for his own benefit and left the rest to rot.

And you seem to overlook the fact the Saddam's regime was terroristic itself-- King of the Hill if you will. They were regional terrorists, too. Ask Kuwait.

 

I love old movies; how about you?

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

 

Giddy, I don't pretend to understand everything about Iraq, but as little about as I know, I can understand that it wasn't like a blue state red state part of Iraq.

Saddam only physically had control over part of the country. The Kurds had control of the North. Before the end of the civil war could Abe Lincoln be in charge of what groups were forming in Alabama? No, because he wasn't in control of it.

The areas that Saddam had control of did not have Al-Qaeda in it. Get it through your head, so we can stop having this conversation. Saddam didn't control all of Iraq. The part with terrorists in it was the part Saddam didn't have control. Saddam actually worked hard to make sure he didn't have groups like Al-Qaeda in the part he controlled.

That being said, STOP PRETENDING LIKE I'M SAYING SADDAM WAS A GREAT LEADER. You don't have to remind me how horrible he was to his own people, and what a dictator he was.

But you should also realize that one nation acting against another such as Kuwait and Iraq did to each other was a dispute between the nations, not terrorism.

The issue brought up wasn't whether or not Saddam was a good leader, but whether Al Qaeda was in Iraq and Saddam supported them, and would have given them free reign inside Iraq. Either stick to that topic or make a clean break from that topic to discuss how bad Sadddam was. Because the two topics aren't really related.

I don't want to have to do this every single thread someone makes the oft rebuked claim that Al-Qaeda and Saddam were allies, and would have worked together.

 

Great. It shows the hypocrisy of the Democratic party, which I don't deny.

Note that I never said in my post that the Republican party used WMD as a pretext. It was the US government, which happens to have been headed by a particularly corrupt administration in recent years. But the WMD stuff has been a pretext for our foreign policy with Iraq ever since the Gulf War.

 

Your remarks were about the "planners" of the war which were clearly the Republican administration. That's why I bristled.

Thanks for acknowledging that the blame goes all-around.