That's pure speculation that even the Administration's own people reports discount. That's not preemption that's paranoia.
Huh? What about he Duelfer Report? His conclusion was that even though no nuclear WMDs were found, Saddam was a danger and was intent on becoming an even bigger danger as soon as he bribed off the UN sanctions. While that is somewhat speculative, I don't think you can fairly call it paranoid. There is evidence.
We should take action with anyone who poses a threat to us. That doesn't mean we should invade everyone who poses a threat to us. edit: changed second "anyone" to "everyone"
Hold on: 1) The State Department 2) The CIA 3) The 911 commission 4) Colin Powell 5) Donald Rumsfeld Have all confirmed that there is no evidence linking AQ to Sadaams' regime. What part of this do you not get? Are you listening?
who else have we invaded? to continue along your logical path, just because we shouldn't always invade, that doesn't mean we should never invade.
They met but didn't solidify anything. That's different. Are you denying intent? Specifically, I think there is no evidence linking Iraq to the 9/11 plot. Do you really think that AQ was in Florida and New York but not in Iraq? I think you are blurring the conclusions.
Bush has met with officials from China, does that mean that Bush is supporting communism? Reagan met with leaders of the Soviet Union, and had frequent communication with them. Does that mean that Reagan was supporting or in any way aligned with the Soviets? Contact between the two doesn't prove anything.
If Sadaam was a future threat and not a present threat, then was it okay for us to launch a full invasion? Was it wise? Was it good leadership? What did it do to our credibility, to launch an invasion for reasons which have been utterly debunked? Was it smart to launch a full invasion with insufficient troops to keep the peace? Is this good leadership? Is it good leadership to claim no responsibility or accountability for your mistakes?
I agree. Just because we shouldn't always invade, that doesn't mean we should never invade. But let's not speak just in generalities. Let's be more specific. If Sadaam had no link to AQ, and had no WMD nor any system in place to create them, was full on invasion (with insufficient troops to win the peace) the appropriate action in this case? If you justify invasion under these circumstances, which is what you've been doing, then under your logical path, we should invade any country that has no present WMD systemes but has possible intents of building WMD in the future and getting them to terrorists.
I'm blurring the conclusions? Here's the conclusions: there's no evidence of cooperative ties between AQ and Sadaam. Am I denying intent? Huh? This is utter and total speculation. If the State Dept, CIA, 911 commission, Powell and Rummy had the "smoking gun" of intent they would have presented it.[i/] I cannot believe I'm having this debate.
One more point giddy: You need to understand that Sadaam, as a bloody power mongering dictator, held militant fundamentalists as a threat to his rule. Which indeed they were- they would want a religious state like the Taliban or the one in Iran rather than the secular dicatorship in place. Militant fundamentalists regarded Sadaam as an infidel, which by their rulebook he most certainly was. Zarqawi ran his camp in regions of Iraq outside of Sadaam's control for good reasons- because Sadaam would destroy them if they were in reach. They both had a common enemy, but that's about it. Any other speculation is purely speculation. If you continue to insist that there was cooperation between AQ and Sadaam when the five parties I've listed above have said there is none, then I'd say your support of Bush outweighs your ability to negotiate reality.
You insult both of us with this. If Bush talked with the Chinese about how to make the US Communist then, yes, that would be supporting Communism... et al. Are you asserting that they were trading recipes or something?
It's not an insert, but I will say they didn't agree on any terms of cooperation between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, since that's what every piece of evidence and intel we have confirms. The idea that they are both two bad guys in roughly the same area of the world isn't evidence that they were working together. It doesn't matter how much they talked.
I said that there were attempts at cooperation. I never said or believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. I could well-imagine that an Iraq/AQ alliance may be emboldned after 9/11 when they may agree to put their differences aside to do further insult to the US. Your ability to put words in my mouth bodes well for your ability to negotiate reality!
It means they tried to find common ground. That means that they might find it in the near future-- especially after AQ had struck a demonstrable blow against the US on 9/11. You don't think AQ could have used some of Saddam's money to further his mayhem?
Okay, just to be sure we're actually talking about the same thing here- It seems you're discerning between a tie between Sadaam and 911, and a cooperative tie between Sadaam and AQ in general. Just to be clear, the sources I've listed above did not simply debunk a 911/Sadaam relationship. They debunked any cooperative relationship between Sadaam and the terrorist group, which is what you are continually asserting here. You're asserting the possibility- that's fine, I guess, but what's your point? I can assert lots of possibilities. The possibility you're putting forth has been researched heavily by CIA, state dept, 911 commission, etc., and has been debunked. Is this clear?
This is pure speculation. The blow struck by AQ was over a year past when we invaded, and the two adversaries were not in cooperation with each other. The intel, said that in all likelyhood Saddam would not give WMD to terrorists UNLESS he was attacked.
Not to forget he didn't have any to give anyway. I think the invasion supporters here are missing a key point. I think the Duelfer report was right on in pointing out that there was a possibility that Saddam could become a threat and that Saddam certainly had the intent to reconstitute his weapons program. That said its obvious that at the time he wasn't a threat and was far weaker than even many of us who opposed the invasion in the first place thought. Saddam didn't constitute a remotely imminent threat at the time but wasn't someone we should've ignored. There is a cost to any action and considering at the same time we're still hunting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, trying to shore up the homeland and also engaged in a global hunt for terrorists was it wise to launch an invasion that has cost tens of billions of dollars and counting, over 1000 US lives and counting, and an occupation that has embittered us to the world with no sign of ending? We don't live with unlimited resource and in the war to get terrorists we need both resources and friends to do that. Invading Iraq has done neither. If we had been patient we could've continued to keep pressure on Saddam indefinately. We could've worked on our intelligence, pressured the UN to keep up with inspecitons and sanctions and still kept the option of invading. In March of 2003 none of that was the case, we had pressure on Saddam, we had inspectors that were working (inspite of all the anti-US spin the inspectors have been proven right) and as the Duelfer report points out sanctions weren't faltering and had gotten stronger since 9/11. We didn't need to invade then because the costs are much greater than the benefit.
