Dear Iraq:

[mirkwood]

Ah, the hook, line, and sinker the American public has been sold for so long. They hate us b/c we are infidels, b/c we are free, etc.

There always have been and always will be radical elements in any religion. For those who lead, the Osama Bin Laden's of the world, they use Religion as a wrapper for their motives.

You are quite ignorant of where I get my information. That probably applies for others as well, but I'll stick to just myself.

I have studied the Quran and Hadith, some other texts whose names slip the mind at the moment. I also have had access to other sources of information due to my job. Not to mention thier historically documented behavior.

Radical Islam is a serious threat. Always has, always will be.

[Quin]

Quite frankly, I don't see how ANY country could sidestep an invitation that basically says "send us your spies". Although it makes one a bit nervous as to what they intend to do with them once they're there. That, or this is one of the best pieces of long-con diplomacy bearing fruit that I've come across.

"The violence has spurred Baghdad to seek new U.S. aid to curb the threat, said Iraqi Foreign Minister Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. He said a U.S. assistance package could include a limited number of advisers, intelligence analysis and surveillance assets - including lethal drones."

It does make one wonder, through, if we do send a largely diplomatic/intelligence corps over... Exactly what impact on the private security/mercenary presence we have there.

Q

[FunkyTown]

I remember the whole right-of-center world doing damage control. Specifically saying "wait - our main justification isn't al-qaeda in Iraq! Our main justification is [loose groupings of other things, like yellowcake, and 1441, and Hans Blix is a weenie, and state sponsor of terrorism, and drumming up sympathy for the Iraqi people, and pushing dreams of a stable, etc, etc]."

I'm unsure I'm left of center - I'm certainly left of you. But when I'm on other non-LDS websites, I'm often decried as being right-wing.

Very true - Bush did(Not before he invaded, but did end up saying several different things. You'll note that he didn't backtrack until some time later. Remember that the Dixie Chicks made their career damning comment in 2003) end up making a few arguments:

1) That Iraq hadn't complied with UN Resolution 1441, which brought the International Atomic Energy Agency in. No evidence was found for weapons of mass destruction, though 18 122mm chemical rockets were found and disposed of. Hardly weapons of mass destruction without nerve agent stockpiles.

2) That they wanted to bring stability and safety from Saddam Hussein's regime to Iraq - As of 2006, more people died in Iraq than in the previous 20 years combined of Saddam Hussein's reign.

3) That the Iraq government had ties to terrorism - They specifically mentioned Al Qaeda, but I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Can you cite any proven Iraq-government sponsored terrorism versus the US? If not, do you feel that the US should be invaded for its harbouring of Timothy McVeigh? Or Ted Kaczynski?

I agree that's the question. Gotta be careful of the definition of 'we' though.

I see folks on the left continuing to make political hay out of the current situation in Iraq. Praetorian seems to think "send trainers" would be a good solution. The OP says "they wanted us to leave, we left - they're on their own".

Any other ideas?

I will be very careful with that.The stated invasion purpose was, according to General Tommy Franks:

end the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from that country. Fourth, to collect such intelligence as we can related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as we can related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needy Iraqi citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq’s oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. And last, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.”

There needs to be some accountability. There is literally no good option for the US. If you go in to Iraq, Americans and Iraqis will die. You will not be thanked for it. You will be resented. It will be a quagmire. People just trying to help will be attacked. Bad things will happen. Under the extreme pressure, more soldiers will commit atrocities, which will unite the world against the US - This will happen simply because nobody can be stuck in a place where hidden killers are seeking the lives of you and your friends every day without something snapping in at least a few people. It will cost a fortune to a country already stretched by costs.

If the US does not go in, then Iraqi tribalism - Which was held in check by brutality under the previous regime and resulted in serious hatred between the various tribes - Will result in genocide against one group or another. Innocent men, women and children will suffer horribly. The US will be blamed again, both by the rest of the world and by many of the Iraqis themselves. There will be anarchy, and pain and blood and innocents who wouldn't have suffered will now suffer.

You ask if I have ideas? No. Not without hopping in to a way-way back machine and stopping the invasion before it started. Now that it has, those are the choices. They are both unpalatable.

[Windseeker]

1) That Iraq hadn't complied with UN Resolution 1441, which brought the International Atomic Energy Agency in. No evidence was found for weapons of mass destruction, though 18 122mm chemical rockets were found and disposed of. Hardly weapons of mass destruction without nerve agent stockpiles.

After failing to fully comply with U.N. Resolutions 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, Resolution 1284, and Resolution 1373 and giving Hans Blix the runaround which in and of itself is non-compliance with 1441 I don't think this argument has much merit.

3) That the Iraq government had ties to terrorism - They specifically mentioned Al Qaeda, but I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

This is a fairly honest assessment from CFR - IRAQ: Iraqi Ties to Terrorism - Council on Foreign Relations

Can you cite any proven Iraq-government sponsored terrorism versus the US? If not, do you feel that the US should be invaded for its harboring of Timothy McVeigh? Or Ted Kaczynsk?

What is your definition of harboring? What terrorist activities did either of these commit in other countries that would cause foreign countries to see them as a threat?

Timothy McVeigh was given a death sentence and executed, Ted Kaczynsk will be incarcerated for the rest of his life.

Your example is a bit weak here.

I don't see the point in rehashing this, hindsight is 20/20 but like Loudmouth has pointed out, those who oppose it still seem to be stuck with some of the old false comparisons and arguments that failed miserably at preventing us from going in the first place.

[FunkyTown]

This is a fairly honest assessment from CFR - IRAQ: Iraqi Ties to Terrorism - Council on Foreign Relations

What is your definition of harboring? What terrorist activities did either of these commit in other countries that would cause foreign countries to see them as a threat?

Timothy McVeigh was given a death sentence and executed, Ted Kaczynsk will be incarcerated for the rest of his life.

Your example is a bit weak here.

Well, actually, it was just to see if you would agree that harbouring a terrorist is worthy of being invaded. Are you suggesting that you would think the US should be invaded if they, for instance, armed and trained fighters that would be used against foreign countries? I could rather easily point out the Iran-Contra affair, for instance. Unless you're claiming that this was arming 'insurgents' rather than Terrorists, in which case I will ask for your definition of what a terrorist is - That definition, by the way, the rest of the world asked for and the US refused to give for just that reason. Hitting civilian targets? Currently, Syria is being armed and some civilian targets are being hit. That's occurring right now.

I don't see the point in rehashing this, hindsight is 20/20 but like Loudmouth has pointed out, those who oppose it still seem to be stuck with some of the old false comparisons and arguments that failed miserably at preventing us from going in the first place.

False comparisons. Let me be perfectly clear here:

The 'arguments that failed miserably' were, "The UN and most of the world thinks you shouldn't go in there." and the US's counterargument was, "You can't stop us!"

No WMDs were found. The country is in tatters with no stability whatsoever(Another argument to go in - To establish a stable democracy). More people have died than during the entire Hussein regime in Iraq(And that milestone was passed in 2006, three years in to the war. Another purpose was to free the people from a Tyrant that endangered their whole people. Doing so killed far more people than the Tyrant himself.)

There is no Democracy. There is no safety. There were no WMDs. The literally ONLY argument left is that the government may have harboured a group that even the US government refuses to define to prevent that definition being used against them.

Now, I recognize that hindsight is 20/20. But the US has to first admit that it made a terrible mistake in invading Iraq. It has to admit that and then talk about what options they have. You can claim that these same old tired arguments didn't stop you in the first place.

But do not think for a moment that just because the world couldn't stop you doesn't mean they were wrong.

[Windseeker]

I agree that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.

You have a lot more faith in the "world" than I do. The world is consumed by greed; it doesn't seem to care about much; certainly not freedom and liberty.

I'm not opposed to cooperation and even consensus with those who share like values. But the U.N. is joke and leech on freedom and justice loving people worldwide. I believe the U.N. not only needs to be abolished but all of its members put on trial for corruption and sentenced to death if found guilty.

[FunkyTown]

I agree that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.

You have a lot more faith in the "world" than I do. The world is consumed by greed; it doesn't seem to care about much; certainly not freedom and liberty.

Should it? If so, why?

[Windseeker]

Individuals should care about freedom and liberty, but the "world" won't ever care.

[NeuroTypical]

A few years ago, I learned some things about the way the geopolitical world functions, and it changed my outlook and debate style. (I've largely returned to my former debate style for this thread, largely out of habit. I spent so many hours debating the rightness or wrongness of the war back in the late '90's, it got ingrained in my brain I guess.)

Anyway, life got clearer and easier for me to find my place, once I realized that the geopolitical world doesn't function on right and wrong. It was quite a shocker to me, but I believe it's true. No country interacts with it's neighbors on principle. Not the US, not Canada, not Russia, or Australia, or the UK, or anywhere else. The countries that come closest are Israel (operating on the principle of "we have a right to exist"), and it's neighbors (operating on the principle of "no they shouldn't"). But even there, right and wrong are just notions the elites use to drum up support for what the government wants to accomplish.

No, on the geopolitical stage, it's not about right and wrong, it's about leverage and interest. If you're a nation (or an elite in a nation), you want what you want because you want it. And you'll use whatever leverage against your neighbors you have, to get it. Every nation has political capital, economic capital, and military capital, and every nation applies them differently to itself and its neighbors.

Within a nation, there's an ongoing power struggle (nicely termed "internal debate") about how to best use the nation's capital. And when you're a nation with bigger capital or more visible use, you invite kibbitzing from citizens of other nations. That's what's happening in this thread.

Right and wrong, in a geopolitical context, are only useful to the extent that it advances or hinders your faction or your opponent's. And there are plenty of cases where you have the power to pursue your agenda, even if everyone thinks you're wrong.

This is what happens when God sets His children lose on their own planet. This is what we've always done, across all of recorded history, ever since getting kicked out of the garden. The folks in Enoch found a better way, and their reward was to not have to play the game any more.

It makes me sad, resigned, and hopeful for the millenium.

(To the folks whose gut reaction will be to believe I'm saying this in defense of America's actions, I can only tell you that you're missing my point. But feel free to call me more names, if you think it helps.)

Edited August 21, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[FunkyTown]

Individuals should care about freedom and liberty, but the "world" won't ever care.

But for those who don't, should we force it upon them?

God let Israel have a King when they decided they'd rather have that then Judges.

[NeuroTypical]

Funky makes a great point. Not everyone believes in things like "basic human rights" like freedom of speech. We're not too many centuries down the road from a time when almost nobody believed it. My buddy had a discussion with one of his smart consultant associates, a practicing Muslim originally from Pakistan. This person is a highly-educated, well-traveled person, who has lived in a dozen countries, working for various corporations in various capacities. My buddy asked him about why there's no freedom of speech in Islam - here's his response:

Moving on to the topic of speech in Islam. In Islam, it's not a matter of freedom, rather respect. You can't just go about blabbing things at will. Allah has set ground rules for us in this World that we are follow. When you submit yourself, you submit yourself entirely, i.e., you follow what is prescribed and you are to gain knowledge of what, how, when and why so your understanding is thorough - something that separates us from animals.

Whether we follow these rules or not, is our choice - a choice we must answer for in the Hereafter. However in this world, one may not go around slandering the religion publicly, it's rules and regulations, and all the Prophets & Messengers etc, just because one 'believes' in his mypic, perhaps delusion and pride stricken mind to be right, worse yet of superior views. Living under the Islamic government and calling yourself a Musalmaan (muslim), you are held liable for what you do publicly. Why? Because your behavior may plague others minds and before long it might be considered a norm thus triggering the entire society into a dowward spiral.

Simple example - as a good parent, if your child goes about calling you with bad names in your house because he/she thinks that right, what would you do? Reprimand him right? Hardly will the thought cross your mind that he has the right to freedom of speech, because you know he's lost it. And if you don't take action, others kids may join in. A double wrong.

These bloggers don't care to study the religion and understand the how's and why's. They read something here and there and don't care to understand the wisdom behind it. Instead, they use their own 'wisdom' off of the two liner to draw conclusions which invariably results in more gross misconception, misassumption and eventual rebillion. Before long, they read everything with the mindset of somehow debuncking the divine message. Nothing new nowadays irrespective of the religion.

So yes, you live by the divine rules and not by the humanly created idea of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a western concept brought about due to circumstances people faced here, not in Islamic countries.

[yjacket]

You are quite ignorant of where I get my information. That probably applies for others as well, but I'll stick to just myself.

I have studied the Quran and Hadith, some other texts whose names slip the mind at the moment. I also have had access to other sources of information due to my job. Not to mention thier historically documented behavior.

Radical Islam is a serious threat. Always has, always will be.

And you are quite ignorant of where I get my information; and if I were a betting man, I know my information is better than whatever you've got, I'd stake my life on it.

Point #1: This thread is or was not about Islamic terrorism. Iraq != Islamic Terrorism. Unfortunately, it was originally tied together to justify the war in Iraq.

Point #2: Radical Islam has not and will not always be a serious threat. If it was so serious a threat, I guess everyone was just living under rocks for the past 100 years and everyone magically woke up on 9/11. Is terrorism a threat, yes is it, but the root cause of it is not a religious motive, it is a political motive. Failing to understand the actual cause of terrorism, it's motives and what it aims to achieve dooms whoever is fighting it to ultimately loss.

Point #3: If one actually reads, the documentation of Bin Laden and his stated reasons for 9/11, a significant portion of it is about the US being involved in the Middle East.

Point #4: I've had many discussions with several individuals, the real root of Radical Islam and why they attack the US, is the US's support and the massive interest that are beholden to the Israel state. When one really breaks down the barriers and all the junk about why the US should be involved in the middle east, it almost inevitably turns to the issue that the US should be there to "protect" Israel . . .

Point #5: I see you have studied the Quran and other Islamic texts, but ignore the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 13:6-9.

My point is not to get into an argument about the interpretation of Deut.

My point is that wars very rarely have a purely religious motive. Religion can and will be used often to attract the masses, but those who are in charge, those who wage it, the leaders . . . they are extremely smart, capable men who are not simply religious fanatics. They have political motives and aspirations.

I'll give a case in point in Germany. Yes, many hated the Jews for their religion, but it goes deeper than that. The head of the Reichbank during the period of Hyperinflation in Germany was a Jew. Many of the individuals who had substantial amounts of money, i.e. bankers were Jewish. Now, if I already have a dislike for people from Harvard and the Federal Reserve Chairman is from Harvard and in the span of 2 years, a loaf of bread goes from $2 to $2000. My ingrained biases will cause me to hate any individuals that are associated with the person most visible with the loss of my money, any bankers and individuals with money. Maybe I turn a blind-eye to things that occur to people from Harvard.

The world is way more complex than just the simple fanaticism that is portrayed on Radical Islam.

Edited August 27, 2013 by yjacket

[NeuroTypical]

Iraq != Islamic Terrorism. Unfortunately, it was originally tied together to justify the war in Iraq.

According to yjacket:

Iraq harbors and shelters guy who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, but Iraq doesn't equal Islamic Terrorism.

Iraq harbors and shelters the guy who mixed the bombs for the first World Trade Center bombing, but Iraq doesn't equal Islamic Terrorism.

Iraq not only harbors and shelters Zarqawi, while he was the most wanted terrorist in the entire world, but also sets him up to operate out of an Iraqi government office, as an arm of the Iraqi state, but Iraq doesn't equal Islamic Terrorism.

yjacket, everyone reading the thread can see that you refuse to admit Saadam's Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, despite overwhelming evidence the rest of the world accepted a decade ago. I can't speak for the rest of the thread viewers, but I'm judging you and your opinion accordingly.

Point #3: If one actually reads, the documentation of Bin Laden and his stated reasons for 9/11, a significant portion of it is about the US being involved in the Middle East.

I see you've started using bold as a way to insult people with different opinions than you. Rather than just make a point, you insult the intelligence of your opponent. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm judging you and your insulting demeaning smear tactics accordingly.

To speak to your point, I've read up on Bin Laden's motives, propaganda, and philosophies and tactics. Bin Laden wanted to re-establish the Caliphate, but understood all the Islamic nations were either fragmented, weak, ruled by secular governments, or afraid of the US. He bet big that the US was a paper tiger. He bet on the following path:

* He'd attack the US

* We'd not have the guts to respond substantively

* The Islamic world would see the US weakness, and cease to be afraid of US involvement in their affairs.

* The Islamic world would rise up against their corrupt or secular rulers, spread to other nations, and unite and bring back the Caliphate.

Well, we responded substantively. To the extent that the world now sees a higher level of grassroots Islamic terrorism, he made advances. But he didn't really get his global uprising.

the real root of Radical Islam and why they attack the US, is the US's support and the massive interest that are beholden to the Israel state.

True, to a certain extent. Much of the Islamic world, and many Islamic nations, detest Israel and do not believe it has a right to exist. Many believe all the Jews should be murdered, pushed into the ocean, etc. Yes indeed, they hate the US because we ally with Israel.

Since Radical Islam is a global thing these days, with the \majority of violence taking place an ocean away from us and our allies, I fail to see how you can blame it all on US support of Israel.

My point is that wars very rarely have a purely religious motive. Religion can and will be used often to attract the masses, but those who are in charge, those who wage it, the leaders . . . they are extremely smart, capable men who are not simply religious fanatics. They have political motives and aspirations.

Agreed 100%. Edited August 27, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[yjacket]

A few years ago, I learned some things about the way the geopolitical world functions, and it changed my outlook and debate style. (I've largely returned to my former debate style for this thread, largely out of habit. I spent so many hours debating the rightness or wrongness of the war back in the late '90's, it got ingrained in my brain I guess.)

Anyway, life got clearer and easier for me to find my place, once I realized that the geopolitical world doesn't function on right and wrong. It was quite a shocker to me, but I believe it's true. No country interacts with it's neighbors on principle. Not the US, not Canada, not Russia, or Australia, or the UK, or anywhere else. The countries that come closest are Israel (operating on the principle of "we have a right to exist"), and it's neighbors (operating on the principle of "no they shouldn't"). But even there, right and wrong are just notions the elites use to drum up support for what the government wants to accomplish.

No, on the geopolitical stage, it's not about right and wrong, it's about leverage and interest. If you're a nation (or an elite in a nation), you want what you want because you want it. And you'll use whatever leverage against your neighbors you have, to get it. Every nation has political capital, economic capital, and military capital, and every nation applies them differently to itself and its neighbors.

Within a nation, there's an ongoing power struggle (nicely termed "internal debate") about how to best use the nation's capital. And when you're a nation with bigger capital or more visible use, you invite kibbitzing from citizens of other nations. That's what's happening in this thread.

Right and wrong, in a geopolitical context, are only useful to the extent that it advances or hinders your faction or your opponent's. And there are plenty of cases where you have the power to pursue your agenda, even if everyone thinks you're wrong.

This is what happens when God sets His children lose on their own planet. This is what we've always done, across all of recorded history, ever since getting kicked out of the garden. The folks in Enoch found a better way, and their reward was to not have to play the game any more.

It makes me sad, resigned, and hopeful for the millenium.

(To the folks whose gut reaction will be to believe I'm saying this in defense of America's actions, I can only tell you that you're missing my point. But feel free to call me more names, if you think it helps.)

I like a lot of what you said here. :-).

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The US did a fairly decent job of being a real beacon of Freedom, Liberty, mind your own business, with a good amount of humble, God-fearing, leaders.

IMO it started to changed with Lincoln, but the real turning point was around 1900. Since then, it has been a constant slide towards more power and more empire.

Power must be as decentralized as possible, but we centralize it more and more.

It is my contention that there is absolutely nothing more destructive to the peace, prosperity, freedom of a nation than War. The costs of War are absolutely tremendous, those who are directly affected by it, the military industrial complex that benefits, the leaders who benefit from a successful campaign, the men/women killed, the massive amount of desensitivity for human life that occurs and becomes ingrained in a culture.

War is Hell on Earth. No matter how free the US believes itself, or how great she thinks of itself, or how blessed she believes she is to help all the other nations on earth, she does not have the resources, the financial ability, the manpower, the cultural psychological reserve to defend the world or to spread democracy to the world, or to fight perceived injustices.

A continual war footing over time will erode freedoms, exhaust resources and ultimately bankrupt (spiritually, morally, financially) the US.

A War should only be fought when absolutely necessary, when one is directly attacked. And even in those circumstances, it would be wise to understand those who attacked otherwise one might be like a little boy who continually pokes bees nests and then gets mad and angry when they sting him . . .

[yjacket]

According to yjacket:

Iraq harbors and shelters guy who pushed Leon Klinghoeffer off the boat, but Iraq doesn't equal Islamic Terrorism.

Iraq harbors and shelters the guy who mixed the bombs for the first World Trade Center bombing, but Iraq doesn't equal Islamic Terrorism.

Iraq not only harbors and shelters Zarqawi, while he was the most wanted terrorist in the entire world, but also sets him up to operate out of an Iraqi government office, as an arm of the Iraqi state, but Iraq doesn't equal Islamic Terrorism.

yjacket, everyone reading the thread can see that you refuse to admit Saadam's Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, despite overwhelming evidence the rest of the world accepted a decade ago. I can't speak for the rest of the thread viewers, but I'm judging you and your opinion accordingly.

I see you've started using bold as a way to insult people with different opinions than you. Rather than just make a point, you insult the intelligence of your opponent. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm judging you and your insulting demeaning smear tactics accordingly.

To speak to your point, I've read up on Bin Laden's motives, propaganda, and philosophies and tactics. Bin Laden wanted to re-establish the Caliphate, but understood all the Islamic nations were either fragmented, weak, ruled by secular governments, or afraid of the US. He bet big that the US was a paper tiger. He bet on the following path:

* He'd attack the US

* We'd not have the guts to respond substantively

* The Islamic world would see the US weakness, and cease to be afraid of US involvement in their affairs.

* The Islamic world would rise up against their corrupt or secular rulers, spread to other nations, and unite and bring back the Caliphate.

Well, we responded substantively. To the extent that the world now sees a higher level of grassroots Islamic terrorism, he made advances. But he didn't really get his global uprising.

True, to a certain extent. Much of the Islamic world, and many Islamic nations, detest Israel and do not believe it has a right to exist. Many believe all the Jews should be murdered, pushed into the ocean, etc. Yes indeed, they hate the US because we ally with Israel.

Since Radical Islam is a global thing these days, with the \majority of violence taking place an ocean away from us and our allies, I fail to see how you can blame it all on US support of Israel.

Agreed 100%.

Dude, what the heck is your problem? Or are you completely reflecting back on to me?

I have not said, Iraq was not state sponsor of terrorism. Iraq was not connected to 9/11 or Al qaeda, or "Islamic Terrorism" as the term is commonly known.

From wiki:

1993 WTC investigations[edit source | editbeta]

After the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, there were several investigations of possible collaboration between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists who attacked the building.[70] Neil Herman, who headed the FBI investigation into the attack, noted that despite Yasin's presence in Baghdad, there was no evidence of Iraqi support for the attack. "We looked at that rather extensively," he told CNN terrorism expert Peter Bergen. "There were no ties to the Iraqi government." Bergen writes, "In sum, by the mid-'90s, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the F.B.I., the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the C.I.A., the N.S.C., and the State Department had all found no evidence implicating the Iraqi government in the first Trade Center attack."[71]

1998 National Security Council exercise[edit source | editbeta]

In 1998, Daniel Benjamin, who headed the National Security Council's counterterrorism division, led an exercise aimed at a critical analysis of the CIA's contention that Iraq and al Qaeda would not team up. "This was a red-team effort," he said. "We looked at this as an opportunity to disprove the conventional wisdom, and basically we came to the conclusion that the CIA had this one right." Benjamin later told Boston Globe reporters, "No one disputes that there have been contacts over the years. In that part of the America-hating universe, contacts happen. But that's still a long way from suggesting that they were really working together."[72]

2001 President's Daily Brief[edit source | editbeta]

Ten days after the September 11 attacks, President Bush receives a classified President's Daily Brief (that had been prepared at his request) indicating that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda." The PDB writes off the few contacts that existed between Saddam's government and al-Qaeda as attempts to monitor the group rather than attempts to work with them. According to the National Journal, "Much of the contents of the PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism." This PDB was one of the documents the Bush Administration refused to turn over to the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, even on a classified basis, and refuses to discuss other than to acknowledge its existence.[13]

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Because I bold something, I'm insulting you . . . wow that's a new one on me. I didn't realize if I put emphasis on a word, I insult you . . . maybe I should be really quite and not say anything. Because I use the word pedantic, I insult you? I have tried to my best effort to use "one" instead of "you" to be less personal . . .

And with Bin Laden . . . he wanted (oops, sorry for insulting you . . . again!) the US to get involved in Afghanistan, were empires go to die. And he did a magnificent job of it too, let's see 12 years later, how many trillion more in debt b/c of the wars? Some chickens came home to roost in the '08 recession, more will come later. Hmm, how did the great soviet empire die, they financially strapped themselves to an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. . . .

Edited August 27, 2013 by yjacket

[mirkwood]

*deep sigh*

I've had to delete multiple responses because I keep getting prompts not to post. For once I'm going to listen to that prompt and not reply. I don't agree with you and I'll leave it at that.

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW: I don't know if there's revisionist history going on, or if my memory is just losing it; but I don't remember EVER believing, or hearing from an official Bush administration source, that there was a link between Iraq and 9-11. My recollection is that it was all about terrorism generally, WMD, and noncompliance with the UN, and maybe an offer of refuge for Al Qaida after-the-fact.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Dravin]

FWIW: I don't know if there's revisionist history going on, or if my memory is just losing it; but I don't remember EVER believing, or hearing from an official Bush administration source, that there was a link between Iraq and 9-11. My recollection is that it was all about terrorism generally, WMD, and noncompliance with the UN, and maybe an offer of refuge for Al Qaida after-the-fact.

You can try looking through this: Iraq on the Record

If they made a link between Iraq and 9/11 you'd expect it to have been included given the nature of the document.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Dravin