Saddam's Ideal of France . . .make France seem pretty pathetic kind of like an aging toothless tiger still trying to roar Rocket River
no one's saying we shouldn't be going after the saudis too. pakistan is a far more difficult issue. the admin seems to be trying to co-opt them into working with, rather than against, us, and seems to have had some success. bu tas the aq khan netowrk demonstrated, pakistan certainly has/had extensive links to terror.
Actually led me add to my statement: the amount of links to Al Qaeda in Iraq pre-war are not only less than that of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (and likely others) - they're also much less than post-war links between Al Qaeda and Iraq - they've been upgraded from breakfast links to full blown keil bassae.
all the more reason to stay until the job is finished, rather than engage in some murtha-esque game of hide-the-sausage.
tell me how do you determine "when the job is finished" in iraq?? do you really think that murtha's ideas are so extreme that majority of generals disagree with him?
basso, I read that as an intent to attack exile groups working to overthrow his regime. If you're going to parse quotes, at least look at the context. No one here has ever said Saddam was an angel. I never said he shouldn't have been overthrown, but that the timing and way the Administration was going about it was terribly wrong, and would have unintended consequences. I said that before the balloon went up. I was right and, although you will, no doubt, not believe me, I wish I had been wrong. We are in the midst of a nightmare voyage in Iraq, with an incompetent fool at the helm. We shouldn't have left the dock. Keep D&D Civil.
no one's parsing quotes, and martydom operations against targets in west? pretty interesting for a supposedly secular regime, with no connections to islamic radicals. and why are you so blase about exiles?
and the hits from the archives keep on coming: http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1 -- "Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq" A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio. The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states. (Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein. It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor. The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)
This particular hit from the archives shows no colusion or aid given to Al Qaeda or support from Saddam.
Who's blasé? No one has ever suggested Saddam was anything less than a brutal despot. The world happens to be full of them. That doesn't warrant the invasion and occupation of a sovereign country that wasn't a clear and present danger to the United States. You are fixated on finding reasons to support being in this war, and finding reasons why Bush shouldn't be vilified for bringing this nightmare upon the American people. There is no need to suggest that I, or anyone else here, are blasé about any part of this mess. Far from it. There are a long list of despots who have their grip on power... who murder, torture, and oppress groups of their people, and attempt to crush exile groups bent on ending their reign. Why aren't you full of rightous indignation regarding them? Why, to use your word, are you blasé about their fate? Why aren't we gathering forces to invade Belarus? Why aren't we invading Myramar, North Korea, one of several likely candidates in Central Asia (oh, wait... we have military bases in a couple of them, for the "War on Terror." I guess despots are fine when it suits the Bush Administration's purposes.), or any one of several African dictatorships? Don't you care about them? Why so blasé, basso? You only care if it affects Bush? So it would seem. Keep D&D Civil.
